nevidljiva povijest izložbi / invisible history of exhibitions

novine ⁄ galerija nova № 19/20 ⁄ newspapers

nevidljiva povijest izložbi / invisible history of exhibitions

novine ⁄ galerija nova № 19/20 ⁄ newspapers

02 03

Uz podršku kulturnog programa Evropske unije /

With the support of the Culture Programme of European Union

Ovaj projekt financiran je sredstvima Europskog povjerenstva. Publikacija

odražava isključivo mišljenje autora te Povjerenstvo ne preuzima nikakvu

odgovornost za načine korištenja informacija koje su u njoj sadržane.

/ This project has been funded with the support from the European

Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of

the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use

which may be made of the information contained therein.

Novine Galerije Nova / Gallery Nova Newspapers #19/20

Ovo izdanje novina Galerije Nova dio je projekta Umjetnost

uvijek ima posljedice kojeg podupire program Europske Unije

Kultura 2007-2013 / This issue of Gallery Nova newspapers

is part of the project Art always has its consequences

supported by the Culture 2007-2013 program of the

European Union

Organizatori projekta Umjetnost uvijek ima posljedice su:/

Organizers of Art Always Has Its Consequences are: Centar

za nove medije kuda.org, Novi Sad ★ Museum Sztuki, Łódź

★ tranzit. hu, Budimpešta ★ Što, kako i za koga/WHW,

Zagreb

izdavači / publishers:

Što, kako i za koga / What, How and for Whom

Slovenska 5/1 ★ HR-10000 Zagreb ★ whw@mi2.hr

AGM ★ Mihanovićeva 28 ★ Zagreb ★ agm@agm.hr

urednici / editors: Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László ★ WHW [Ivet

Ćurlin ★ Ana Dević ★ Nataša Ilić ★ Sabina Sabolović]

arhivski materijali / archive research: Dušanka Profeta

prijevodi / translation: Marina Miladinov ★ Goran Vujasinović

lektura / proof-reading: Susan Jakopec ★ Branka Kosanović

dizajn / design: Dejan Kršić

tipografija / typography: ARS, Brioni Text, TyponineSans

Pro & TyStencil Pro [typonine / nikola đurek]

fotografija na naslovnici / cover page photo: Gyula Zaránd

tisak / printing by: URIHO tisak, Zagreb

naklada / print run: 1000

srpanj / July 2009, Zagreb

uz podršku / supported by

Gradski ured za kulturu, obrazovanje i šport Grada Zagreba /

City office of Culture, education and sport of City of Zagreb

Ministartsvo kulture Republike Hrvatske /

Ministry of Culture of the Republic Croatia

AGM, Zagreb

ECF / European Cultural Foundation

Nacionalna zaklada za razvoj civilnoga društva

Projekt Nevidljiva povijest izložbi – paralelne kronologije pokrenut je kako bi bacio pogled na kustoske i umjetničke prakse

i metodologije usmjerene na poslijeratnu istočnoevropsku umjetnost i događaje. Simpozij i izložbe organizirane u Budimpešti povezani su s istoimenim projektom koji je započeo kustoski kolektiv Što, kako i za koga/WHW u Zagrebu, koji organizira izložbe na tu temu od jeseni 2008, u okviru projkekta Art Always has its consequences.01

Projekt Nevidljiva povijest izložaba – paralelne kronologije razmatra povijest i današnje interpretacije izložbe kao dominantnog formata suvremene umjetničke proizvodnje i prezentacije.

“Povijest” u tom kontekstu interpretira se kao sklop konstruiranih narativa zasnovanih na događajima koji obilježavaju promjene u poimanjima umjetnosti (povijesti umjetnosti) i načina njene prezentacije (povijest izložaba). Dok su u zapadnim zemljama mainstream umjetničke institucije prihvaćale kustoske grupne izložbe koje su značile prekretnicu u povijesti izložaba, u Istočnoj Evropi između 1950-ih i 1980-ih progresivni umjetnički događaji uglavnom su se uspijevali događati u “drugom publicitetu”, izvan javnih umjetničkih institucija, u privatnim stanovima i u off-site prostorima – tako da su duboko uronjeni u povijesne uvjete javne sfere. Na simpoziju se pokušalo oblikovati zajedničko znanje i diskurs o raznim istočnoevropskim umjetničkim scenama i izložbenim praksama te pratiti i uvesti različite metodologije koje bi uključile te događaje u međunarodni diskurs o teoriji izložaba. Pozvali smo međunarodne stručnjake i kustose (osobnim pozivom i selekcijom putem međunarodnog otvorenog poziva) kako bismo dobili prikaze slučaja s teorijskim razmatranjima.

U ovom broju novina Galerije Nova predstavljamo izbor članaka napisanih za simpozij i intervjue sa sudionicima. U uvodu opisujemo i izložbu Paralelne kronologije koja je organizirana sa simpozijem.

Paralelne kronologijedokumentarna i istraživačka izložba Paralelne kronologije istražuju izložbu kao kulturalni fenomen i kao žanr po sebi, te se usredotočuju na razdoblje definirano raznim verzijama državnog socijalizma u Istočnoj Evropi. Cilj projekta je odbaciti uobičajene načine na koje međunarodne i lokalne izložbe ignoriraju ili egzoticiraju to područje. U tu svrhu predstavljamo mrežu profesionalnih odnosa, izložaba, događaja i umjetničkih prostora umjesto da naprosto prikažemo umjetnička djela iz tog razdoblja.

Pozvali smo dvije dokumentarne izložbe koje se odnose na razdoblje neoavangarde i razmatraju

01 Website projekta: http://www.artalways.org

umjetničke događaje u širem društveno-političkom kontekstu. Zanimali smo se i za metodologiju kojom se dokumenti i činjenične informacije mogu prikazati na izložbi, a da i dalje stvaraju vizualni okvir. Prelom kolektiv iz Beograda istražio je SKC, Studentski kulturni centar u Beogradu 1970-ih, kao prikaz slučaja, i osim što je proučio nekoliko važnih tamošnjih događaja, osvrnuo se i na društveno-političku situaciju u kojoj je Centar tada djelovao. Centar za nove medije kuda.org prikupio je najvažnije dokumente o avangardi 1960-ih i 1970-ih u Novom Sadu i postavio ih u vremenski okvir najvažnijih političkih i kulturalnih promjena koje su utjecale na to područje. O tim projektima više se može doznati u intervjuima s članovima organizacija Prelom i kuda.org.

Treći odsjek izložbe predstavio je progresivne umjetničke događaje 1960-ih i 70-ih u Mađarskoj. Polazište izložbe bila je analiza žanra kronologije kao važnog kanala posredovanja umjetničkih događaja epohe. Kronologije odlučujuće transformiraju atomske događaje u povijesti i kanon, posebno u slučaju istočnoevropskih umjetničkih događaja koji su se često događali u sklopu drugog publiciteta 60-ih i 70-ih.

Stoga smo prikupili i usporedili kronologije razdoblja, sastavljene sinkronijski, u to vrijeme, ili pak naknadno, retrospektivno. Na zidu su bile prikazane stranice triju važnih publikacija, čime se omogućilo prostorne usporedbe popisâ događaja. Polazište za većinu kasnijih kronologija je bogato ilustrirana kronologija Dóre Mauer,02 objavljena u katalogu izložbe koja je predstavila mađarske umjetnike u Njemačkoj 1980-ih.03 Mauer je vizualna umjetnica koja je mnogo putovala i djelovala poput osobe-institucije: preuzimajući ulogu povjesničarke umjetnosti i kustosice, počela je bilježiti događaje i izložbe. Drugu važnu kronologiju tog razdoblja u Mađarskoj napisali su Márta Kovalovszky i Péter Kovács, dvoje povjesničara umjetnosti iz Muzeja kralja Istvána u Székesfehérváru. Pokrenuli su niz izložaba 1960-ih, pod naslovom Mađarska umjetnost u dvadesetom stoljeću, na kojima su opisali i predstavili uglavnom uobičajene umjetničke predmete, dok su katalozi s preciznom kronologijom i bibliografijom danog razdoblja sadržavali i underground i akcionističke događaje,

02 Dóra Mauer održavala je i predavanja s dijapozitivima i izdavala publikacije kojima je obavještavala međunarodnu javnost o mađarskoj neoavangardnoj umjetničkoj sceni. Važne su bile i njene pedagoške aktivnosti. S Miklósom Erdélyjem osnovala je, vodila i dokumentirala nezavisne tečajeve kreativnosti koji su uspostavili avangardne, tj. suradničke procese u radovima u kojima se primjenjivalo i tradicionalne i nove medije u umjetničkom obrazovanju.

03 Künstler aus Ungarn [katalog izložbe] Kunsthalle Wilhelmshaven, 1980.

Prikazi slučajaUz kronologije, izložba je predstavila i prikaze slučaja, prema narativima koje se može iščitati iz dokumenata o umjetničkim događajima iz 60-ih/70-ih i njihovu utjecaju. Budući da smo u svom istraživanju naišli na nekoliko neusklađenih, sukobljenih čitanja i sjećanja na to razdoblje, odlučili smo pokrenuti anketu putem e-maila u kojoj smo pitali mađarske profesionalce na području umjetnosti, različite generacijske i subkulturne pripadnosti, koje umjetničke događaje tog razdoblja smatraju najvažnijima s obzirom na svoju vlastitu praksu. Umjesto da se usmjerimo na objektivnu povijest dobivenu sintezom ili pomirenjem različitih pojedinačnih gledišta, nakanili smo slijediti idiosinkratični model neslaganja i

slaganja, kartu slijepih točaka i legendi. Iz četrdesetak odgovora doznali smo da se kompetencija za razmatranje underground akcija i izložaba čak i danas gotovo isključivo pripisuje sudionicima i svjedocima samih događaja, pa je stoga teško provoditi akademsko i kustosko istraživanje s međunarodnim usporedbama. Iako je radoznalost mlađih generacija često sputana nedostatkom dostupnih informacija i “legendama” koje je teško razmrsiti, ipak je mnogo mladih umjetnika uspostavilo odnose razumijevanja s nekim fenomenima iz tog razdoblja.

Odabirući koje događaje i povezanu dokumentaciju ćemo prikazati, razmatrali smo zašto neki događaji stječu važnost čim se dogode te tako začinju anegdote i legende, dok se drugi brzo zaboravljaju ili ih se može interpretirati tek kad ih se sagleda iz kasnijega konteksta.

Zanimalo nas je kakve je javne uloge progresivne umjetnosti i kakve mogućnosti za njezin nastanak nudila politička i društvena klima tog razdoblja, kako je bila povezana s međunarodnim trendovima i kako su ti događaji definirali odnos između umjetnosti i publike. U tu svrhu paralelno smo postavili aktivnosti raznih generacija, kao i događaje koji su se odvili na službenim (javnim), profesionalnim i ad hoc izložbenim prostorima, kao što su domovi kulture ili klubovi, s onima koji nikad nisu izašli iz faze planiranja ili su bili

nevidljiva povijest izložbi – paralelne kronologije Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László

uključujući ih u periodizacijski sustav. Nakon 1989. bilo je pokušaja da se rehabilitira neoavangardna umjetnost koja je cvjetala pod političkom represijom i da se iznova napiše povijest tog razdoblja. Ambiciozno postavljena izložba Šezdesete – novi trendovi u mađarskoj vizualnoj umjetnosti (1991) u organizaciji Mađarske nacionalne galerije bila je jedan od najutjecajnijih takvih pokušaja. Izložili smo kronološki poredano poglavlje

“Dokumenti” iz kataloga izložbe, objavljeno u sklopu izložbe. Posljednja dva desetljeća napisano je još nekoliko kronologija koje istražuju “nevidljive” umjetničke događaje 60-ih i 70-ih. Te kronologije obično se zasnivaju na arhivama (npr. C3 i Artpool)04 ili su povezane s umjetničkim projektima.05

04 Kronologija u kontekstu – politika, znanost i umjetnost od 1963. do 1989 (samo na mađarskom) http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1963.html ; pokušaj kronologije avangardne umjetnosti u Mađarskoj 1966-1980 (samo na mađarskom) http://www.c3.hu/collection/koncept/index2.html.

05 Npr.: Prijenosni Muzej povećanja inteligencije koji je utemeljio agent NETRAF-a (Fronta paralelne unije neosocijalističkorealističke internacionale globalnotelekomunikacijskih protukrivotvoritelja povijesti umjetnosti) Tamás St.Auby.

Odabirući koje

događaje i povezanu

dokumentaciju

ćemo prikazati,

razmatrali smo zašto

neki događaji stječu

važnost čim se dogode

te tako začinju

anegdote i legende,

dok se drugi brzo

zaboravljaju ili ih se

može interpretirati

tek kad ih se

sagleda iz kasnijega

konteksta.

Zanimalo nas je

kakve je javne

uloge progresivne

umjetnosti i kakve

mogućnosti za njezin

nastanak nudila

politička i društvena

klima tog razdoblja,

kako je bila povezana

s međunarodnim

trendovima i kako su

ti događaji definirali

odnos između

umjetnosti i publike

Akcija rukovanje (organizirao i fotografirao László Beke) / Hand-shake action (organized and photographed by László Beke), 1972, Balatonboglár, Ljubaznošću / courtesy of Artpool Art Research Center

04 05

zabranjeni. Odabirući, razmatrali smo događaje koji su na ovaj ili onaj način oblikovali ili obnovili žanr izložbe, reinterpretirali izložbeni prostor u odnosu prema umjetničkom predmetu ili preko događajnog karaktera izložbe. Budući da smo tražili i odgovor na pitanja kako izložba postaje događaj i što se može dogoditi na izložbi, krenuli smo istraživati povezanosti između izložaba koje predstavljaju umjetnička djela statički i razne akcionističke i performativne prakse.

U Mađarskoj između 1950-ih i 1980-ih sve javne izložbe morale su dobiti dozvolu od odgovornih institucija vlasti – na osnovi preciznog popisa umjetničkih djela – i u cjelini su ih financirale državne institucije.

One tendencije koje nisu bile odobrene morale su pronaći alternativna mjesta, načine prezentacije i samoupravljanja. Mnogo važnih događaja, posebno u prvoj polovici 60-ih, dogodilo se u privatnim stanovima i prostorima. Većina mađarskih i međunarodnih kronologija neoavangarde spominju

“Ručak, prvi mađarski happening” kao svojevrsno polazište. Taj događaj su 1966. u privatnom podrumu organizirala dvojica pjesnika – Tamás Szentjóby i Gábor Altorjay – koji su tada imali nešto više od dvadeset godina. Bio je profesionalno pripremljen: poslane su pozivnice, pripremljena je fotografska i filmska dokumentacija, pozvani su novinari, a čak su se naplaćivale i ulaznice; happening je istovremeno bio i vrlo radikalan, šireći granice fizičke i mentalne tolerancije sudionika i publike. Iako je bilo prisutno samo 10-15 gledalaca, taj događaj predefinirao je način na koji se umjetnost stvarala i predstavljala u godinama koje su uslijedile. Pojam “happeninga”, kao opasne i “nezdrave” manifestacije pometnje koja dolazi iz zapadnog svijeta pojavio se i u nespecijaliziranom tisku, pa čak i u kolumnama humorističkih časopisa. Tajna policija podnijela je izvještaj o njemu, što objašnjava zašto je kritičko vrednovanje žanra u godinama koje su uslijedile bilo gurnuto na periferiju javne svijesti i zašto su sjećanja na taj događaj često međusobno proturječila, bez ikakve objektivne reference. Više o kontekstu toga happeninga u intervjuu s Tamásom St. Aubyjem, također objavljenim u ovom broju.

U otvorenijim i liberalnijim 60-ima, usporedno s nastankom akcionističkih praksa, ali neovisno o njima, pojavile su se nove mogućnosti za održavanje izložaba. Pojavila se ideja (potaknuo ju je ministar kulture György Aczél) da izložbama koje kulturalna politika nije željela podupirati ipak treba osigurati prostor. Taj izložbeni prostor bila je dvorana Fényes Albert, gdje su nastupali umjetnici koji predstavljali različite trendove, pod uvjetom da sami financiraju svoju izložbu. Samofinancirana izložba Lajosa Kassáka (avangardnog pjesnika i vizualnog umjetnika, 1887-1967) koja se u tom prostoru otvorila u godini njegove smrti bila je simbolički događaj. Nigdje drugdje nije mogao izlagati svoja konstruktivistička djela. Istovremeno, bilo je apsurdno i ponižavajuće očekivati da umjetnik – koji je bio

vjesnik ljevičarskih umjetničkih pokreta prije Drugog svjetskog rata i obožavale su ga generacije – sam plati sve troškove svoje izložbe.

Prve izložbe koje su, umjesto da prikazuju posebne umjetničke predmete, predstavljale projekte i okoline koje su uključivale cijeli izložbeni prostor također su morale pronaći prostor izvan izložbenih institucija pod državnom kontrolom. Osim u dvorani Fényes Adolf za prikazivanje

“tolerirane umjetnosti”,06 takva djela mogla su se izlagati samo u sporednim centrima za kulturu i izložbenim prostorima izvan glavnoga grada.

Rad Győrgyja Jovánovicsa, gipsani odljev koji je prikazivao tlocrt izložbenog prostora kroz površinski otisak stola prekrivenog tkaninom, prikazan je 1970. u dvorani Fényes Adolf. Njegovo polazište za izvođenje tog rada bilo je da izložbeni prostor nema nijedan pravi kut i stoga nema nikakve veze s izložbenim prostorom kao bijelom kockom. Kao refleksija o ograničenom publicitetu tog prostora, izložbu je otvorila fiktivna, izmišljena radijska emisija koja je izvijestila o tom događaju kao o jednoj od najvažnijih međunarodnih vijesti dana.

Iste godine, Pseudo izložba Gyule Pauera, koja je stvarala skulpturalnu prostornu iluziju unutar izložbenog prostora, bila je otvorena dva dana u centru za kulturu. Kako se vidi u dokumentarnom filmu07 o toj izložbi, posjetioci su morali reinterpretirati svoja poimanja, ne samo o skulpturi nego i o izložbama. Povjesničar umjetnosti i kritičar László Beke, također intervjuiran u filmu, nazvao je taj rad prvim uspješnim environmentom u Mađarskoj.

Erzsébet Schaar (1908-1975), predstavnica starije generacije koja je uvijek slijedila svoj individualni put, na svojoj izložbi u Székesfehérvaru izložila je instalaciju od gipsa koja je prikazivala ulicu s ljudskim likovima koji su ispunjavali i rekomponirali cijeli izložbeni prostor. Njen rad, u duhu modernizma, stvorio je nacionalni panteon s ličnostima najvažnijim za kulturu, u pratnji tajanstvenih ženskih likova.

Izložbe u Ipartervu od 1968. do 1980. posebno su važne u povijesti izložaba u Mađarskoj, u smislu da su ponudile zajedničku platformu i profesionalni “menadžment” za novu generaciju umjetnika uključenih u razne progresivne tendencije, od apstraktnog i enformel slikarstva i kiparstva, preko pop-arta do akcionističkih praksa. Grupne izložbe inicirali su sami umjetnici, tražeći od mladog povjesničara umjetnosti da organizira izložbu, a on se referirao i na Documentu 1968, na kojoj su prikazane nove umjetničke manifestacije u kontekstu međunarodnih trendova. Prva

06 Prema kulturalnoj politici koju je krajem 60-ih u Mađarsku uveo Győrgy Aczél, kulturalna proizvodnja bila je razvrstana u tri kategorije: podupirana, tolerirana i zabranjena.

07 To je bio diplomski film Jánosa Gulvása na Mađarskoj filmskoj akademiji.

izložba, koja je trajala samo nekoliko dana, održala se u prosincu 1968 u glavnoj dvorani Državnog arhitektonskog ureda Iparterv. Za taj događaj otisnute su pozivnice, plakat i maleni katalog, a godinu potom, na izložbi 1969. objavili su publikaciju pod naslovom Dokument, koja je otisnuta ilegalno. Ta publikacija služila je kao primjer samizdata ideološki opasnog sadržaja u obrazovanju časnika tajnih službi.08 Legenda o Ipartervu nastala je u trenutku samog događanja. Ta grupa umjetnika je 1980. zajedno izlagala u istom prostoru, a zatim je objavljena publikacija na engleskom i mađarskom, s određenim brojem studija. U toj knjizi sami autori pišu o legendi o Ipartervu.

Osim off-site domova kulture i ad-hoc izložbenih prostora, umjetnici su tražili prazne, neupotrebljavane zgrade koje bi preuzeli. György Galántai, upravo diplomirani vizualni umjetnik, 1996. godine pronašao je napuštenu kapelicu u Balatonboglár na jezeru Balaton i u toj praznoj zgradi odlučio otvoriti atelje i izložbeni prostor. Nakon dugotrajne i naporne procedure ishođenja dozvole, prva izložba otvorena je 1970. Na početku tradicionalnije izložbe – koje su dopuštale i “tolerirane” trendove – postupno su ustupale mjesto eksperimentalnim, performativnim i time-based događajima, kao i projektima artikuliranja kritike institucija i političkim izjavama. Kad je dobivanje dozvole od vlasti za sve više nekonformističke izložbe postalo beznadno, Galántai je odustao od službene procedure i preimenovao Galeriju “Kapelica” u Atelje “Kapelica”

– koji je smio organizirati samo ne-javne događaje.Svi događaji u načelu su bili označeni kao “privatni”, ali često

su i dalje uključivali pojam publike. Programski niz iz 1972. pod naslovom Izravni tjedan, u skladu s konceptom formuliranim u pozivu na sudjelovanje, imao je za cilj uspostaviti izravan kontakt s publikom umjesto izlaganja umjetničkih predmeta. Tijekom te izložbe Tamás Szentjóby predstavio je svoju akciju pod naslovom Autoterapija za prevenciju kazne: s kantom nad glavom “kažnjavao” je sebe tjedan dana, osam sati na dan, pri čemu je pozivao i publiku (povremene mjesne posjetioce i umjetničke profesionalce) da ga ispituju. Godine 2005. umjetnička grupa Mala Varšava zamolila je Tamása Szentjóbyja da ponovi akciju, koja je izvorno bila snimljena na fotografijama i filmskim fragmentima, a ovaj put je dokumentirana u obliku videa.09

U Galántaijevom Ateljeu “Kapelica” pružala se i prilika progresivnim umjetnicima iz istočnog bloka da se upoznaju i zajedno izlažu radove (naravno, bez dozvole). Iste godine, na ljeto 1972, u događaju koji je organizirao László Beke, češki

08 Az ellenség tanulmányozása [Proučavanje neprijatelja] Uvodni udžbenik za Policijsku akademiju, napisao policijski zapovjednik Ferenc Gál, 1972.

09 Little Warsaw: Reconstruction – Isolation exercise – Cyril & Method, 2005.

i slovački umjetnici surađivali su s mađarskim kolegama. Ritualnim paranjem članka iz časopisa koji je izvještavao o mađarskim vojnicima koji su pomogli gušenju praške revolucije 1968, i rukovanjem prikazanim u obliku fotomontaže, izložba je izravno reflektirala traumu koja je karakterizirala odnos između dviju zemalja.

1973. godine prigovori koje su vlasti upućivale Ateljeu “Kapelica” jačali su i dolazili sa svih strana. Na kraju su progresivni umjetnici “izbačeni”. U takozvanoj “akciji odlaženja” György Galántai izašao je iz kapelice s rekvizitom iz akcije u underground kazalištu: transparentom s natpisom

“Prijateljsko uvjeravanje”.Od početka 70-ih stroža kontrola nad progresivnim

praksama ugrozila je i pojedinačne nosioce. Krajem 1975. Tamás Szentjóby protjeran je iz zemlje jer su kulturalne vlasti ocijenile njegove umjetničke aktivnosti kao odviše provokativne. Prije odlaska organizirao je izložbu kojom je okupio svoje radove proizvedene između 1966. i 1975. za vlastitu retrospektivu u Klubu mladih umjetnika. U to vrijeme bio je to jedan od važnih polujavnih prostora, koji je tolerirao progresivne događaje. Na toj izložbi predstavio je svoje konkretne pjesme, konceptualne predmete i dokumentaciju svojih akcija. Kasnije je Szentjóby održao i predavanje, koje je smatrao umjetničkim žanrom, a u kojem je svoju aktivnost definirao kao ne-umjetnost, drugim riječima, kao program koji izravno reagira na stvarnost.

Krajem 70-ih pojavila se nova generacija umjetnika i pokrenula nova pitanja, poput samoupravljanja i rodnih odnosa. Isti prostor, Klub mladih umjetnika, udomio je izložbu Akt/model Orsolyje Drozdik, članice postkonceptualističke umjetničke grupe Ružin krug. Predstavljala je novu generaciju koja je naslijedila jezik konceptualne umjetnosti, ali je i tražila nove načine postajanja profesionalnim umjetnikom. Akcije Orsolyje Drozdik reflektirale su muškocentričnu perspektivu tradicionalnog umjetničkog obrazovanja. Uz svjesno zauzeto žensko stajalište, kritika povijesti umjetnosti naznačuje i nov, postmoderni pristup. Orsolya Drozdik 1978. emigrirala je u Nizozemsku, a potom u New York, gdje se njezin instinktivan pristup umjetnice razvijao u skladu s feminističkim teorijama. Više o izložbi Akt/model u fotoeseju objavljenom u ovom broju.

Ti događaji, odabrani kao prikazi slučaja, mogu pružiti uvid u sve one društvene, političke i profesionalne okolnosti koje su određivale kako se umjetnost mogla predstavljati u Mađarskoj, od izložaba u stanovima i događaja 60-ih do pojave postmodernih tendencija krajem 70-ih. Usredotočili smo se na razdoblje koje je dovelo do radikalnih promjena u postavljanju izložaba putem izravne reakcije na međunarodne trendove, kao i na lokalnu stvarnost na društvenoj, političkoj i kulturalnoj razini. U tom smislu, ono što smo uspjeli predstaviti je zbirka dokumenata kojoj su potrebni aktivni i kritički čitaoci.

Ministar kulture

György Aczél

potaknuo je ideju

da izložbama koje

kulturalna politika

nije željela podupirati

ipak treba osigurati

prostor. Taj izložbeni

prostor bila je

dvorana Fényes

Albert, gdje su

umjetnici nastupali

pod uvjetom da sami

financiraju svoju

izložbu. Izložba

Lajosa Kassáka

otvorena u godini

njegove smrti bila je

simbolički događaj.

Bilo je apsurdno

i ponižavajuće

očekivati da

umjetnik – koji je bio

vjesnik ljevičarskih

umjetničkih pokreta

prije Drugog

svjetskog rata – sam

plati sve troškove

svoje izložbe

Krajem 70-ih

pojavila se nova

generacija umjetnika

i pokrenula nova

pitanja, poput

samoupravljanja i

rodnih odnosa. Nova

generacija naslijedila

je jezik konceptualne

umjetnosti, ali

i tražila nove

načine postajanja

profesionalnim

umjetnikom. Klub

mladih umjetnika,

udomio je izložbu

Akt/model Orsolyje

Drozdik, članice

postkonceptualističke

grupe Ružin

krug. Njene akcije

reflektirale su

muškocentričnu

perspektivu

tradicionalnog

umjetničkog

obrazovanja. Uz

svjesno zauzeto

žensko stajalište,

kritika povijesti

umjetnosti naznačuje

i nov, postmoderni

pristup

Lajos Kassák: Plakat izložbe Slika Arhitektura / Poster of the Image Architecture

exhibition, 1967, Fényes Adolf Hall

Naslovnica kataloga izložbe Iparterv I. / The cover of the exhibition catalogue Iparterv I., 1968. dizajn /Design by György Kemény

Naslovnica publikacije Dokumentum 69-70,

realizirana nakon izložbe Iparterv II; sudionici

izložbe snimljeni su na balkonu Lászlóa Laknera

/ The cover of the publication Dokumentum

69-70, compiled after the Iparterv II exhibition

showing the Iparterv artists at László Lakner’s balcony.

06 07The project The Invisible History of Exhibitions - Parallel

Chronologies was launched to look at curatorial and artistic practices and methodologies dealing with postwar Eastern

European art exhibitions and events. The symposium and exhibitions organized in Budapest are connected to a project with the same title initiated by the What, How and for Whom? curator group in Zagreb, who organized exhibitions in this theme since the Fall of 2008 all within the framework of Art Always has its consequences.01

The Invisible History of Exhibitions - Parallel Chronologies project looks at the history and the current interpretations of the exhibition as the dominant format of contemporary art production and presentation. “History” in this context is interpreted as constructed narratives based on events that signify shifts in the notions of art (art history) and the modes of its presentation (exhibition history). While in western countries mainstream art institution hosted curatorial group exhibitions that constitute the landmarks in the history of exhibitions, in Eastern Europe between the 1950s-1980s progressive art events could mostly happen in “second publicity”, outside of public art institutions, in private flats and off-site spaces – so they are deeply embedded in the historical conditions of the public sphere. The attempt of the symposium was to form shared knowledge and discourse on various Eastern-European art scenes and exhibition practices and to trace and introduce different methodologies that could include these events in the international discourse on exhibition theory. We invited international scholars and curators (by personal invitation and by selection form an international open call) to bring case studies with theoretical considerations.

In this issue of Galerija Nova newspaper we present a selection of papers that were written for the symposium and interviews with the participants. In the introduction we also describe the exhibition Parallel Chronologies that was organized together with the symposium.

Parallel Chronologiesdocumentary and research exhibitionParallel Chronologies investigates the exhibition as a cultural phenomenon and a genre on its own right and is focusing on the period determined by different versions of state socialisms in Eastern Europe. The project intends to break with the usual ways international and local exhibitions and publications ignore or exoticize this field. For this aim we present a network of professional relationships, exhibitions, events, and art spaces instead of the sheer display of artworks from the period.

We invited two documentary-exhibitions that deal with the neo-avant-garde period and look at art events in their broader socio-political context. We were also interested in the methodology how documents and factual information can be shown in an exhibition still creating a visual framework. The prelom kolektiv from Belgrade has researched the SKC, the Student Cultural Centre in Belgrade in the 70s as a case study and beside studying several significant events that happened there, they looked at the socio-political situation in which the Centre functioned at that time. Kuda.org new media centre has collected the most important documents of the 1960s and 70s neo-avant-garde in Novi Sad along a timeline following the

01 Project website: http://www.artalways.org

the invisible history of exhibitions – parallel chronologies Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László

most important political and cultural changes affecting this field. You can learn more about these projects in the interviews made with Prelom and kuda.org members.

The third section of the exhibition presented progressive art events from the 1960s-70s in Hungary. As a starting point the exhibition addressed the genre of chronology, an important channel of mediating art events of an epoch. Chronologies play a defining role in transforming atomic events into histories and canons especially in the case of Eastern-European art events that often happened in the second publicity during the 60s and 70s.

For this reason we collected and compared chronologies of the period composed synchronically that time or subsequently in retrospect. The pages of three important publications were displayed on the wall, thereby making it possible to draw spatial comparisons of the lists of events. The point of departure for most of the later chronologies is Dóra Maurer’s02 splendidly illustrated chronology published in the catalogue of an exhibition presenting Hungarian artists in Germany in 1980.03 Maurer is a visual artist, who herself travelled a lot and working as a one-person institution, taking up the role of an art historian and curator she started to record events and exhibitions. Another important chronology of this era in Hungary was written by Márta Kovalovszky and Péter Kovács, two art historians of the István Király Museum in Székesfehérvár. They initiated a series of exhibitions in the 1960s with the title Hungarian Art in the 20th Century. during which they described and presented different periods according to the international trends that defined them. The exhibitions displayed mostly conventional object of art whereas the catalogues featuring the precise chronology and bibliography of the given period also included underground and actionist events incorporating them in the system of periodisation. After 1989 there were attempts to rehabilitate the neo-avant-garde art which came into life under political repression and to rewrite the history of this period. The ambitiously set up exhibition The Sixties

– New Trends in Hungarian Visual Art (1991) organized by the Hungarian National Gallery was one of the most influential attempts. We have put on display the chronologically ordered

“Documents” chapter of the exhibition catalogue issued in conjunction with the show. In the last two decades several further chronologies were written to explore the “invisible” art events of the 60s and 70s. These chronologies are typically based on archives (like that of the C3 and Artpool)04 or are connected to art projects.05

Case-studiesTogether with the chronologies the exhibition presented case studies following narratives that can be discerned from the documents of art events that happened in the 60s/70s and their afterlife. Since during our research we encountered several disagreeing, conflicting readings and memories of this period, we decided to launch an e-mail inquiry asking Hungarian art professionals belonging to different generations and subcultures about the art events of this period that they find

02 Dóra Maurer also held slide lectures and created publications through which she informed international publics about the Hungarian neo-avant-garde art scene. Her educational activity was also important, together with Miklós Erdély she founded, taught, and documented independent creativity classes that established avant-garde, i.e. collaborative, process-based exercises using both traditional and new media in art education.

03 Künstler aus Ungarn. [exhibition catalogue] Kunsthalle Wilhelmshaven, 1980.

04 Context Chronology - Politics, science, and art from 1963 to 1989 (only in Hungarian) http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1963.html; The chronology attempt for the avant-garde art in Hungary between 1966–1980 (only in Hungarian) http://www.c3.hu/collection/koncept/index2.html

05 E.g.: Portable Intelligence Increase Museum established by the NETRAF (Neo-Socialist Realist International Parallel Union of Telecommunications’ Global Counter-Art History Fakers’ Front) agent: Tamás St.Auby.

the most significant in relation to their own practice. Instead of aiming at an objective history gained from the synthesis or reconciliation of differing individual points of views we rather intended to trace the idiosyncratic pattern of disagreement and accordance, the map of blind-spots and legends. We learnt from the approx. 40 answers that competence to deal with underground actions and exhibitions is – even today – almost exclusively assigned to the participants and witnesses of the very events, thus making academic and curatorial research, international comparisons hardly realizable. Though the curiosity of younger generations is often held back by the lack of accessible information and the “legendaries” hard to untangle, still a lot of young artists established sensitive relationships to certain phenomena of the period.

Selecting events and related documentation to present we looked at why some events gain significance as soon as they happen, making them the starting points of anecdotes and legends, while others are quickly forgotten or can only become interpretable when seen from a later context.

We were interested to find out what public roles and possibilities for appearance the era’s political and social climate provided for progressive art, what connections it had with international trends and how the events defined the relation between art and the public. To this end, we put in parallel the activity of the various generations as well as events that were held at official (public), professional, and ad hoc exhibition venues, such as culture houses or clubs, or ones that never passed the planning stage, or were banned. By the selection we were considering events, which in one way or another shaped or renewed the genre exhibition, reinterpreting the exhibition space in relation to the art object or through the event character of a show. As we have been also looking for an answer to the questions of how an exhibition becomes an event and what can happen at an exhibition, we endeavoured to explore the connections between shows that present works of art in a static manner and various actionist and performative practices.

In Hungary between the 1950s and the 1980s, all public exhibitions had to get permission from the responsible authorities – on the basis of a precise list of artworks – and were fully financed by state institutions.

Those tendencies that were not approved had to find alternative sites, ways of presentation and self management. A lot of important events especially in the first half of the 60s took place in private flats and venues. Most Hungarian and international chronologies that deal with neo-avant-garde art refer to the “Lunch, the First Hungarian Happening” as a kind of point of departure. The event was organized 1966 in a private

The Invisible History of Exhibitions – Parallel Chronologies

project looks at the history and the current interpretations

of the exhibition as the dominant format of contemporary

art production and presentation. “History” in this context

is interpreted as constructed narratives based on events

that signify shifts in the notions of art (art history) and the

modes of its presentation (exhibition history)

In Hungary between

the 1950s & the 1980s,

all public exhibitions

had to get permission

from the responsible

authorities and were

fully financed by

state institutions.

Those tendencies

that were not

approved had to

find alternative sites,

ways of presentation

and self management.

A lot of important

events especially

in the first half of

the 60s took place

in private flats and

venues

Deplijan izložbe “Donor” čije je otvorenje u organizaciji Tamása Szentjóbija planirano u Iparterv Architecture Office. Izložba je otkazana nedugo nakon tiskanja deplijana. / Invitation leaflet for the

exhibition Donor planned at the Iparterv Architecture Office, organized by Tamás Szentjóby, 1968. The exhibition was cancelled after the leaflet had been printed.

Stranice kronologije događanja (sastavila: Dóra Mauer) publicirane u katalogu izložbe Künstler aus Ungarn, 1980/ Pages from the chronology published in the exhibition catalogue Künstler aus Ungarn, 1980, Wilhelmshaven, compiled by: Dóra Mauer

08 09cellar by two poets - Tamás Szentjóby and Gábor Altorjay - who were in their early 20s that time. It was professionally prepared, invitation cards were sent, photo and film documentation was arranged, and journalists were invited, even entrance fee was charged; and at the same time the happening was very radical, pushing against the limits of the participants’ and audience’s physical and mental tolerance. Although only 10-15 viewers were present, this event redefined how art was produced and presented in the following years. The concept of the “happening”, as a dangerous and “insane” manifestation of disorder coming from the Western world made its appearance also in the non-specialized press, even in the columns of humour magazines. The secret police filed a report on it, which explains why the critical evaluation of the genre was pushed to the periphery of public awareness in the following years and why recollections of the event often contradicted each other without any objective reference point. You can read more about the background of this happening in the interview made with Tamás St.Auby also published in this issue.

In the more open and liberal 60s, parallel with the emergence of actionist practices, but first, independent from them, new possibilities appeared in exhibition-making. The idea (initiated by György Aczél, Minister of Culture) occurred that exhibitions which the cultural policy did not wish to support for ideological reasons should still be provided a venue. This exhibition space was the Fényes Adolf Hall, where artists that represented different trends were featured with the condition that they themselves had to finance their exhibition. Lajos Kassák’s (avant-garde poet and visual artist; 1887– 1967) self-financed exhibition that took place in the year of his death at this same venue was an emblematic event. He could not have exhibited his constructivist works anywhere else. At the same time, it was absurd and embarrassing to expect an artist - who was a pioneer of Leftist art movements before the World War II. and was revered by generations - to pay himself all the costs of his exhibition.

The first shows that instead of displaying separate objects of art presented projects and environments that incorporated the entire exhibition space also had to find their venues outside the state-controlled exhibition institutions. Aside from the Fényes Adolf Hall designated for displaying “tolerated” art,06 such works could only be exhibited in out-of-the-way cultural centres and exhibition spaces outside the capital.

György Jovánovics’ work, a plaster-cast that reproduced the ground plan of the exhibition space through the surface imprint of a table covered by cloth was shown in 1970 in the Fényes Adolf Hall. His starting point to realise this work was that the exhibition space did not contain any right angle, and had nothing to do with a white cube exhibition space. Reflecting on the limited publicity of this venue, that exhibition was opened by a fictive, made-up radio program that reported on this event among the most important international news of the day.

06 According to the cultural policy introduced in Hungary by György Aczél in the late 60s cultural production was classified into three categories: Supported, Tolerated, and Prohibited.

In the same year the Pseudo show, creating a sculptural space-illusion within the exhibition space by Gyula Pauer was exhibited for two days at a cultural centre. As evidenced by a documentary film07 about the exhibition visitors had to reinterpret their ideas not only about sculpture but about exhibitions too. The art historian and critic, László Beke, also interviewed in the film called the work the first successful environment in Hungary.

Erzsébet Schaár (1908-1975), a representative of the older generation always following her individual pathways, exhibited an installation made of plaster showing a street including human figures that filled and recomposed the entire exhibition space at her 1974 show in Székesfehérvár. Her work, in the spirit of modernism, created a national pantheon featuring the most important cultural personalities escorted by mysterious female figures.

The Iparterv-exhibitions of 1968-80 have a particular significance in the history of exhibitions in Hungary in the sense as they provided a common platform and professional

“management” for a new generation of artists engaged in various progressive tendencies from abstract and informel

painting and sculpture through pop art to actionist practices. The group shows were initiated by the artists themselves who asked a young art historian to organize the exhibitions, he also made references to the 1968 Documenta presenting the new artistic manifestations in the context of international trends. The first exhibition, which lasted only few days, took place in December 1968 at the main hall of the Iparterv State Architectural Office .For this event invitation, poster, and a small catalogue were printed; then a year after the next, 1969 show they released a publication with the title Document, which was published illegally. This publication served as an example for samizdat publications with ideologically dangerous content in the education of secret services officers.08 The legend of Iparterv came into existence at the moment of its happening. In 1980, this group of artists exhibited together at the same

07 It was a graduation film of János Gulyás at the Hungarian Film Academy

08 Az ellenség tanulmányozása. [Studying the enemy] Preliminary textbook for the Police Academy written by Ferenc Gál Police commander, 1972.

venue again, then an English-Hungarian publication was issued containing a number of studies. In this book, the authors themselves write about the Iparterv legend.

In addition to off-site cultural houses and ad-hoc venues artists were also looking for empty, unused properties to take over. In 1966 György Galántai, a freshly graduated visual artist, found an abandoned chapel in Balatonboglár at the lake Balaton, and decided to open a studio and exhibition space in the empty building. Following a long and testing procedure of acquiring permission, the first exhibition opened in 1970. The initially more traditional exhibitions – which also allowed room for “tolerated” trends – gradually gave way to experimental, performative and time-based events as well as to projects articulating institutional critique and political statements. When acquiring permissions of authorities for more and more non-conformist exhibitions and events became a hopeless endeavour, Galántai gave up the official procedure and renamed the Chapel Gallery to Chapel Studio – that could only house non-public events.

In principal all events were designated “private”, still they often dealt with the concept of audience. The 1972 program series entitled Direct Week, according to the concept formulated in the call for participation, wished to establish direct contact with the audience instead of exhibiting art objects. It was during this exhibition that Tamás Szentjóby presented his action entitled Autotherapy for Punishment Prevention: with a bucket over his head he “punished” himself for a week, for eight hours a day while also inviting the audience (occasional local visitors and art professionals) to interrogate him. In 2005, the artist group Little Warsaw asked Tamás Szentjóby to repeat the action which originally had been recorded on photographs and film fragments, and which, this time was documented in the form of a video.09

In Galántai’s Chapel Studio, there was also an opportunity for progressive artists from the Eastern bloc to meet and exhibit their works together (of course without permission). The same summer in 1972, in an event organised by László Beke, Czech and Slovak artists collaborated with their Hungarian colleagues. Through a ritual tearing up of a magazine article reporting on Hungarian soldiers who aided in crushing the 1968 Prague revolution, and through handshakes captured in the form of a photo montage, the exhibition also directly reflected on the trauma that had characterized the relationship of the two countries.

In 1973, the instances of objections raised by the authorities against the Chapel Studio were increasing from all directions. Finally, the progressive artists were “evicted”. In the so called

“Leaving action” György Galántai left the chapel with a prop from an underground theatre action: a sign reading “Friendly treatment”.

From the early 70s stricter control over progressive practices endangered individual carriers too. At the end of 1975, Tamás Szentjóby was expelled from the country, as his artistic activities had been deemed overly provocative by the cultural authorities. Prior to his departure, he organised an exhibition collecting his works produced between 1966 and 1975 for his own retrospective so to say at the Club of Young Artists. It

09 Little Warsaw: Reconstruction – Isolation exercise - Cyril & Method, 2005.

was one of the important semi-public venues of that period, which mostly tolerated progressive events. In this exhibition he presented his concrete poems, conceptual objects and the documentation of his actions. Later Szentjóby also performed a lecture, which he considered an artistic genre, in which he defined his own activity as non-art art, in other words, as a program that reacted to reality in a direct way.

At the end of the 70s a new generation of artists appeared raising new issues like self-management or gender relationships. The same venue, the Club of Young Artists housed the Nude/

Model exhibition of Orsolya Drozdik, a member of the post-conceptualist artist group Rózsa Circle. It represented a new generation who inherited the language of conceptual art but were also looking for new ways to become professional artists. Drozdik’s action reflected on the male-centred perspective of traditional art education. In addition to the consciously assumed female position, the critique on art history also indicates a new, postmodern approach. In 1978, Orsolya Drozdik immigrated to the Netherlands, and then to New York, where her instinctive approach of a woman artist was unfolded in line with feminist theories. You can learn more about the Nude/Model exhibition in the photo-essay published in this issue.

These events chosen as case studies can give an insight into all those social political and professional conditions that determined how art could be presented in Hungary from the flat exhibitions and events of the 60s till the emergence of postmodern tendencies at the late 70s. We focused on a period that brought radical change in exhibition-making through direct reaction to international trends as well as to the local reality on social, political, and cultural level. At the same time what we could present is a collection of documents that need active and critical readers.

In the more open and

liberal 60s, parallel

with the emergence

of actionist practices,

but first, independent

from them, new

possibilities appeared

in exhibition-making.

The idea (initiated

by György Aczél,

Minister of Culture)

occurred that

exhibitions which the

cultural policy did

not wish to support

for ideological

reasons should still

be provided a venue.

This exhibition space

was the Fényes Adolf

Hall, where artists

that represented

different trends

were featured with

the condition that

they themselves

had to finance their

exhibition

Orsolya Drozdik,

a member of the

post-conceptualist

artist group Rózsa

Circle, represented

a new generation

who inherited

the language of

conceptual art but

were also looking for

new ways to become

professional artists.

Drozdik’s action

reflected on the male-

centred perspective

of traditional art

education

Prizori iz filma Pseudo Jánosa Gulyása koji dokumentira dvodnevnu akciju Gyule Pauera Pseudo / Stills from the film Pseudo by János Gulyás, 1970, BBS. The film documents Gyula Pauer’s two-day exhibition Pseudo.

Izložba Paralelne kronologije (Labor, Budimpešta) prikaz kronologija na zidu / Interior of the exhibition Parallel Chronologies, 2009 at Labor with chronologies displayed on the wall.

Izložba Iparterv 1, 1968, katalog izložbe Iparterv

1968-80 / The interior of the Iparterv 1 exhibition, 1968, from the Iparterv 1968-80

catalogue.

10 11Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: What types of exhibition-reconstruction do you distinguish? reesa greenberg: In English, to reconstruct is to put something back together from its original components or to create a plausible scenario based on what is known. Although I use the word ‘reconstruction’ as do many other curators and art historians for attempts to recreate exhibitions, I am increasingly cautious, even skeptical, about its use with regard to exhibitions. Reconstruction is linked to cosmetic surgery and some reconstructions of interventionist exhibitions are just that because they do not include a sense of the socio-political impetus or site specificity that led to the radical exhibition form and/or content. I am thinking here of the reconstruction of Gerhard Richter’s 1966 Volker Bradke exhibition at the Gallery Schmela in the 2009 Art of Two Germanys, first seen at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The reconstruction, with its foreshortened wall, raised and tilted floor, and impossibility of entry was more of a stage-set and it looked like an art installation rather than an exhibition as it was located next to Sigmar Polke’s 1967 similarly scaled, free-standing Potato House Object sculpture. While such marked stylization ensures that we do not confuse the reconstruction with an original exhibition, it also tells us as much, if not more, about current exhibition practice as the exhibition being reconstructed.

At this point, rather than reconstruction, I prefer the term ’remembering exhibition’ as the generic term. Remembering takes into account both the phenomenon of putting together an entity from different parts and the act of linking the present to the past. By shifting the language, substituting remembering for reconstructing or reconstruction, I am also trying to draw attention to what I believe is a new tendency in current exhibition practice: the increased number of exhibitions that remember past exhibitions in exhibition form. Since January 2009, there have been at least eight remembering exhibitions in locations as diverse as London, Paris, Los Angeles, and Budapest.

Not all these remembering exhibitions are the same. Some are replicas of single exhibitions such as the 1971 Robert Morris bodyspacemotionthings recreated at Tate Modern. Some, like Voids at the Centre Pompidou, constitute a retrospective of exhibitions by using multiple replicas and are less concerned with visual fidelity than conveying a sense of the practice of utilizing the void as exhibition premise. Others are what I call riffs: exhibitions that build on an earlier exhibition. A good example would be Retracing Exhibitions at the Royal College of Art that doubled remembering by including a section from Victoria Walsh’s 2001 full reconstruction of the 1953 Independent Group exhibition, Parallel of Art and Life, included in the Nigel Henderson retrospective she curated in London.

In addition to the replica and riff remembering exhibitions there is the archival remembering exhibition, either in single or combined form. The simultaneous showing in May in Budapest of three independent archival exhibitions by three sets of curators remembering events (including exhibitions) in Belgrade, Novi Sad and Hungary in the 70s augmented an understanding of local and regional exhibition practice through juxtaposition. As with all remembering exhibitions, memory was materialized and spatialized but here it was also layered and complex because of the different form and content of each exhibition. I would argue that riffs and archival remembering exhibitions are as important as replica reconstructions.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: What is the difference between monographic and topographic models?reesa greenberg: Monographic models are part of a typographic mentality, an approach that results in the singular be it an exhibition or a book or a catalogue. A topographic model is open-ended, rhyzomic, juxtapositional. Typographic models tend to be nodal: Topographic models are networked. Rather than stabilizing knowledge, topographic approaches destabilize what we know, add perspectives, complicate our sense of what has happened. The multiple, simultaneous exhibitions in Budapest are good examples of a topographic model, not just because the combined event expands topographical knowledge literally but because the very concept of the exhibition is based on expanding the fields of exhibition history through links.

The internet is where such meta approaches to exhibition history occur naturally. The medium is ideally suited for bringing disparate elements into a single space. One example of a revolutionary practice is the kaprow.org website that provided information and documentation on all four venues of the European tour of Allan Kaprow: Art as Life through a single entry point. Similarly, when the exhibition travelled to Los Angeles, MOCA’s website was the only place where all the recreated Happenings taking place either simultaneously or singly could be assembled. The web also allows effortless and inexpensive combinations of varied source material – photographs, videos, interviews, documents, commentary – that print media exclude. The web also fosters different types of knowledge – the sounds and movement of artworks and visitors to exhibitions, for example. The greater inclusiveness of the web constructs a more variated history, one that extends the temporal and spatial information about exhibitions and makes that information available to more people in more places for longer periods of time.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: How could exhibition history as an approach “escape the traps of art history”? reesa greenberg: In the typographic era art history emerged as a discipline or field of inquiry. Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum that the medium is the message applies here. The economics of the typographic – and I include analog photography – were the economics of scarcity. Scarcity is conducive to rarity and the masterpiece model.

The history of exhibitions is a much newer area of study and is influenced by the medium of its era. Digital technologies are less expensive and less restrictive than analog ones and lend themselves to infinite combinations and manipulations. With infinite material and infinite combinations, different kinds of histories can be constructed.

I am probably overly utopian in my belief that the web can transform how we think about history and how we construct it but already the availability of installation photographs on the web is the increasing consciousness of exhibitions as a phenomenon. In the typographic era, exhibitions were represented visually by an image of an artwork. Today, an exhibition review in a newspaper often has an installation shot and a slideshow with more exhibition views. Museums are beginning to adjust to the idea that shared commons will not detract from professionalism. They now post exhibition installation photographs that in the past were archived and generally inaccessible. Take, for example, the website of Art

reconstructing exhibitionsReesa Greenberg

At this point, rather

than reconstruction,

I prefer the term

‘remembering

exhibition’ as

the generic term.

Remembering takes

into account both

the phenomenon of

putting together an

entity from different

parts and the act of

linking the present

to the past. By

shifting the language,

substituting

remembering for

reconstructing or

reconstruction, I am

also trying to draw

attention to what

I believe is a new

tendency in current

exhibition practice:

the increased number

of exhibitions that

remember past

exhibitions in

exhibition form. Since

January 2009, there

have been at least

eight remembering

exhibitions in

locations as diverse

as London, Paris, Los

Angeles, and Budapest

of Two Germanys. The full set of installation images makes it possible to study the exhibition in advance of seeing it or, if the exhibition can’t be seen, as part of a public record. Even if museums don’t post installation photographs on their own website, they do make them available for others to include in their digital commentary. Or people simply take their own photographs and post them.

Digital exhibition reprises coupled with aggregate digitized archival exhibition history sites have the potential of decentering traditional art history through a shift of focus, not just away from the individual artwork in a time when the market is so determinate but away from art history’s usual geographic trajectories. Lorna Roth, a Cultural Studies specialist, has written a number of articles about how the standard colour palette for children’s dolls reinforces racial stereotypes. She argues that shifting the technology removes encoding at the outset thereby preventing embedded stereotypes. I am arguing something similar. If we adopt new technologies for constructing exhibition histories, there is every likelihood that stereotypes can be altered.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: What special significance could exhibition-reconstructions have in the history of East European Art and its international canonization?reesa greenberg: Writing about exhibitions is a form of reconstruction but materializing exhibitions in public space promotes discussion, debate and display. The exhibition becomes a discursive event, both in the exhibition space and outside it. Given the repression of progressive art exhibitions in East Europe before 1989, physical reconstruction helps concretize what until recently was an invisible history. Knowledge of alternatives to Statist culture is important as a corrective to history, provides a context and lineage for similar or related contemporary activity, and acts as a model for those still living in societies where culture is tightly policed. Reconstructions or remembering exhibitions help keep the past present because exhibitions, more than books, have become such key elements in today’s cultural politics.

Language is another reason to materialize the memory of exhibitions. All the examples of remembering exhibitions I discuss translate textual material, in print or online, into English at the moment of publication. Book translations in art and exhibition history rarely occur. The non-German speaking world is still waiting for a translation of the most important early book on the history of twentieth century exhibitions, Bernd Klüser and Katherina Hegewisch’s Die Kunst der Ausstellung or the Art of Exhibition, published in 1991.

The history of exhibitions in East Europe is just beginning to be known, both internally and externally. Publications like East Art Map, written in English, are extraordinarily useful because the reproductions and discussion include some exhibition events. Here, though, exhibitions are not the primary focus.

More than monographic print approaches is needed if the exhibitions of East Europe are to enter an internationalized canon. A multi-modal form of presentation that includes remembering exhibitions, catalogues, and online presence will help. Ultimately what is needed are presentational forms that break the geographically segregated patterns of presentation. Ideally, digital reprises of exhibitions could include links to similar types of exhibitions elsewhere and timelines that allow consideration of exhibitions outside East Europe during the same period as the exhibition being reconstructed. It is too early to hope that those writing exhibition histories of the West online would include similar cross-references.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Have you encountered cases when the reliability of information on the original event was an issue and questionable, missing or contradicting documents affected the methodologies of reconstruction?reesa greenberg: Your question makes me think of Walter Grasskamp’s essay on the history of the white wall in exhibition spaces. Grasskamp points out that we will never really know whether the walls we assume were white because that is the way they appear in black and white photographs actually were white. I think we have to assume that the way we remember exhibitions will always be partial – partial in the sense that we will only know parts of the past and partial in the sense that what we remember is influenced by our perspective.

We will never really

know whether the

walls we assume were

white because that is

the way they appear

in black and white

photographs actually

were white. I think

we have to assume

that the way we

remember exhibitions

will always be

partial – partial in

the sense that we will

only know parts of

the past and partial

in the sense that

what we remember

is influenced by our

perspective

What we must remember is that reconstructions or uses of the past are integral to ideology in the present. When looking at remembering exhibitions, I like to ask why certain exhibitions are being remembered now. Some remembering exhibitions, like Archive in Motion celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of documenta, are commemorative. Some, like the exhibitions in Budapest by Prelom, kuda.org and the Budapest tranzit group, are recuperative and compensatory, designed to redress past invisibility and suppression. Some, like Voids, are intentionally provocative and omit details of context. Most of the reviews of Voids as an exhibition are, in fact, very critical of omissions of data in the exhibition space while simultaneously acknowledging that the catalogue contains a wealth of detailed information and interpretation. For me, the question here is why the curators thought it so important to leave the exhibition space devoid of data.

Another way to answer your question is to assume that every reconstruction is flawed or, put in a more positive light, a work in progress. The history of exhibitions is so new that we have to expect mistakes. As long as these mistakes are honest, what counts is the construction of a scaffold on which to build – and, if necessary, rebuild a history of exhibitions.

Voids. A Retrospective, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2009. © Centre Pompidou / Georges Meguerditchian

12 13Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Koje vrste izložbe-rekonstrukcije razlikujete?reesa greenberg: Rekonstruirati na engleskom znači sastaviti nešto od izvornih komponenti ili stvoriti uvjerljiv scenarij utemeljen na onome što je poznato. Iako se služim riječju

“rekonstrukcija”, kao i mnogi drugi kustosi i povjesničari umjetnosti, kako bih opisala pokušaje re-kreiranja izložaba, sve sam opreznija, pa čak i skeptična u vezi s njenom upotrebom kad je riječ o izložbama. Rekonstrukcija je povezana s kozmetičkom kirurgijom i neke rekonstrukcije intervencionističkih izložaba jesu upravo to, jer ne uključuju dojam sociopolitičkog utjecaja ili site-specifičnosti koji je potaknuo neku radikalnu izložbu i/ili sadržaj. Pritom mislim na rekonstrukciju izložbe Gerharda Richtera iz 1966. o Volkeru Bradkeu u galeriji Schmela u okviru Art of Two Germanys 2009, prvi put viđenu u Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Ta rekonstrukcija, sa svojim perspektivno skraćenim zidom i kosim podom, te uz nemogućnost ulaska, više je nalikovala na pozornicu i izgledala je kao instalacija, a ne kao izložba, a usto je bila locirana uz samostojeću skulpturu Sigmara Polkea sličnih razmjera, Potato House Object iz 1967. Premda tako istaknuta stilizacija osigurava da ne pobrkamo rekonstrukciju s izvornom izložbom, ona nam o današnjoj izložbenoj praksi vjerojatno kazuje jednako mnogo, ako ne i više nego kad bi izložba bila rekonstruirana.

U ovom trenutku, umjesto rekonstrukcije radije biram izraz “izložba sjećanja” kao generički izraz. Sjećanje uzima u obzir i fenomen sastavljanja entiteta od različitih dijelova i čin povezivanja sadašnjosti s prošlošću. Načinivši pomak u jeziku, rekonstruiranje ili rekonstrukciju zamijenivši sjećanjem, pokušavam i skrenuti pažnju na ono što smatram

novom tendencijom u današnjoj izložbenoj praksi: sve veći broj izložaba koje se sjećaju prošlih izložaba u izložbenoj formi. Od siječnja 2009. održano je barem osam izložaba sjećanja, na vrlo različitim mjestima: u Londonu, Parizu, Los Angelesu i Budimpešti.

Nisu sve te izložbe sjećanja iste. Neke od njih su replika jedne izložbe, na primjer bodyspacemotionthings Roberta Morrisa iz 1971, koja je re-kreirana u galeriji Tate Modern. Druge, kao što je Voids u Centru Pompidou, zapravo su retrospektiva izložaba jer se sastoje od više replika i manje se bave vizualnom vjernošću nego što prenose smisao prakse tako što prazninu uzimaju kao premisu izložbe. Treće nazivam riffs [improvizacije]: izložbe koje nadograđuju ranije izložbe. Dobar primjer toga bila bi Retracing Exhibitions na Royal College of Art, koja je udvostručila sjećanje tako što je uključila dio potpune rekonstrukcije izložbe Parallel of Art and Life skupine Independent Group iz 1953, Victorije Walsh iz 2001, uključene u retrospektivu Nigela Hendersona, čiji je kustos ona bila u Londonu.

Uz izložbe sjećanja tipa “riff ” i “replika”, tu je i arhivska izložba sjećanja, bilo samostalna ili skupna. Istodobno predstavljanje tri nezavisne arhivske izložbe, triju kustoskih skupina koje su se prisjećale događaja (uključujući i izložbe) u Beogradu, Novom Sadu i Mađarskoj 70-ih jukstapozicijom su povećale razumijevanje lokalne i regionalne izložbene prakse. Kao i u svim izložbama sjećanja, memorija se materijalizirala i oprostorila, ali tu je bila usto i slojevita i zamršena zbog različite forme i sadržaja svake izložbe. Ustvrdila bih da su riffs i arhivsko sjećanje ne manje važni nego rekonstrukcije kao replike.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: U čemu je razlika između monografskih i topografskih modela?

reesa greenberg: Monografski modeli dio su tipografskog mentaliteta, pristup koji rezultira jedninom, bilo na izložbi ili u knjizi ili katalogu. Topografski model je otvoren, rizomski, jukstapozicijski. Tipografski modeli teže tome da budu nodalni. Topografski modeli su umreženi. Umjesto da stabiliziraju znanje, topografski pristupi destabiliziraju ono što znamo, dodaju perspektive, kompliciraju naš dojam o onome što se dogodilo. Višestruke istodobne izložbe u Budimpešti dobri su primjeri topografskog modela, ne samo zato što kombinirani događaj doslovno širi topografsko znanje nego zato što se sam pojam izložbe temelji na širenju područja povijesti izložbe putem poveznica.

Takvi metapristupi izložbi prirodno nastaju na internetu. Taj medij idealan je za dovođenje disparatnih elementa u jedan prostor. Primjer revolucionarne prakse je website kaprow.org, koji je pružao informacije i dokumentaciju o sva četiri poprišta evropske turneje Allana Kaprowa: Art as Life na

rekonstruiranje izložabaReesa Greenberg

Monografski modeli

dio su tipografskog

mentaliteta, pristup

koji rezultira

jedninom, bilo

na izložbi ili u

knjizi ili katalogu.

Topografski model

je otvoren, rizomski,

jukstapozicijski.

Tipografski modeli

teže tome da budu

nodalni. Topografski

modeli su umreženi

jedinstvenoj ulaznoj točki. Slično tome, kad se izložba preselila u Los Angeles, MOCA-in website bio je jedino mjesto koje je okupilo sve re-kreirane happeninge, bilo da su se događali istodobno ili pojedinačno. Web omogućuje i lako ostvarivanje jeftinih kombinacija raznolikog izvornog materijala – fotografija, videa, intervjua, dokumenata, komentara – koji su isključeni u tiskanim medijima. Web njeguje i različite vrste znanja – na primjer, zvukove i pokrete umjetničkih djela i posjetilaca izložaba. Veća uključivost weba stvara raznolikiju povijest koja obuhvaća vremenske i prostorne informacije o izložbama te čini te informacije dostupnima većem broju ljudi na više mjesta, u duljem vremenu.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Kako bi povijest izložaba kao pristup mogla “izbjeći zamke povijesti umjetnosti“?reesa greenberg: Kao struka ili područje istraživanja, povijest umjetnosti pojavila se u tipografskoj eri. Tu vrijedi slavna izreka Marshalla McLuhana da je medij poruka. Ekonomija tipografije

– tu uključujem i analognu fotografiju – bila je ekonomija oskudice. Oskudica vodi do modela rijetkosti i remekdjela.

Povijest izložaba mnogo je novije područje proučavanja i na njega utječe medij njegove ere. Digitalne tehnologije su manje skupe i manje restriktivne od analognih i podatne su za beskrajne kombinacije i manipulacije. S beskrajnim materijalom i beskonačnim kombinacijama moguće je konstruirati razne vrste povijesti.

Vjerojatno sam previše utopijski nadahnuta u svom uvjerenju da web može preobraziti način na koji promišljamo povijest i kako je konstruiramo, ali dostupnost fotografija instalacija na webu već povisuje svijest o izložbama kao fenomenu. U tipografskoj eri, izložbe je vizualno predstavljala slika umjetničkog djela. Danas, prikaz izložbe u novinama često sadrži snimku instalacije i niz fotografija s dodatnim pogledima na izložbu. Muzeji se počinju prilagođavati ideji da podjela dobara neće umanjiti profesionalizam. Sada izlažu fotografije instalacija s izložbe koje su prije arhivirali i općenito su bile nedostupne. Kao primjer uzmimo website Art of Two Germanys. Potpun sklop slika instalacija omogućuje nam da izložbu proučimo i prije nego što je uopće vidimo ili, ako se izložba ne može vidjeti, kao dio javnog arhiva. Čak i ako muzej ne postavi fotografije instalacije na svoj website, omogućuje drugima da ih uključe u svoj digitalni komentar. Ili pak ljudi snime svoje vlastite fotografije i postave ih na web.

Digitalne reprize izložaba, uz sve siteove s digitaliziranom arhivskom poviješću izložaba, imaju potencijal da pomakom žarišta decentriraju tradicionalnu povijest umjetnosti – da je udalje ne samo od pojedinačnog umjetničkog djela u dobu kad je tržište tako odredbeno, nego i od uobičajenih geografskih putanja povijesti umjetnosti. Loma Roth, stručnjakinja za kulturalne studije, napisala je velik broj članaka o tome kako standardna paleta boja dječjih lutaka pospješuje rasne stereotipe. Ona tvrdi da pomak u tehnologiji uklanja kodiranje na samom početku – te tako sprečava nastanak ugrađenih stereotipa. Ja tvrdim nešto slično. Ako prihvatimo nove tehnologije za konstruiranje povijesti izložaba, vrlo je vjerojatno da se stereotipove može mijenjati.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Kakvu posebnu važnost bi rekonstrukcije izložaba mogle imati za povijest istočnoevropske umjetnosti i njenu međunarodnu kanonizaciju?reesa greenberg: Pisanje o izložbama oblik je rekonstrukcije, ali materijaliziranje izložaba u javnom prostoru potiče raspravu, debatu i prikazivanje. Izložba postaje diskurzivan događaj, i u izložbenom prostoru i izvan njega. S obzirom na potiskivanje progresivnih umjetničkih izložaba u Istočnoj Evropi prije 1989, fizička rekonstrukcija pomaže u konkretizaciji onoga što je donedavno bila nevidljiva povijest. Znanje o alternativama etatističkoj kulturi važno je kao korektiv povijesti, ono nudi kontekst i korijene za sličnu ili srodnu suvremenu aktivnost te djeluje kao uzor onima koji još žive u društvima s kulturom pod strogim nadzorom. Rekonstrukcije ili izložbe sjećanja pomažu da se prošlost održi u sadašnjosti, jer su izložbe, više nego knjige,

postale ključni elementi današnje kulturne politike.Jezik je još jedan razlog da se materijalizira sjećanje na izložbe.

Sve primjere izložaba sjećanja raspravljam na prevedenom tekstualnom materijalu, na engleskom, u trenutku objavljivanja. Rijetko se pojavljuju prijevodi knjiga o povijesti umjetnosti i izložaba. Izvan njemačkog jezičnog područja još se čeka na prijevod najvažnije rane knjige o povijesti izložaba u dvadesetom stoljeću, Die Kunst der Ausstellung ili Umjetnost izložbe Bernda Klüsera i Katherine Hegewisch iz 1991. Tek počinjemo upoznavati povijest izložaba u Istočnoj Evropi, i iznutra i izvana. Publikacije poput East Art Map, napisane na engleskom, izuzetno su korisne jer reprodukcije i rasprave uključuju i neke izložbene događaje. No, tu izložbe nisu u središtu zanimanja.

Ako želimo da izložbe u Istočnoj Evropi uđu u internacionalizirani kanon, potrebno je nešto više od monografskog, tipografskog pristupa. Pomogao bi multimodalni oblik prezentacije koji uključuje izložbe sjećanja, kataloge i prisutnost na mreži. Na kraju, potrebni su prezentacijski oblici koji ruše geografski segregirane modele prezentacije. U idealnom slučaju, digitalne reprize izložaba mogle bi uključiti poveznice sa sličnim vrstama izložaba drugdje, i vremenske slijedove koji omogućuju razmatranje izložaba izvan Istočne Evrope u razdoblju kad je održana izložba koja se rekonstruira. Prerano je nadati se da će oni koji na mreži pišu povijesti izložaba na Zapadu uključiti slične reference.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Jeste li naišli na slučajeve kad je pouzdanost informacija o izvornom događaju bila problematična i upitna, kad su nedostajući ili proturječni dokumenti utjecali na metodologiju rekonstrukcije?reesa greenberg: Vaše pitanje podsjetilo me na esej Waltera Grasskampa o povijesti bijelog zida u izložbenim prostorima. Grasskamp ističe da nikad nećemo doista znati jesu li zidovi o kojima pretpostavljamo da su bili bijeli zato što se takvima doimaju na crno-bijelim fotografijama – doista bili bijeli. Mislim da moramo pretpostaviti da će način na koji se sjećamo izložaba uvijek biti djelomičan – djelomičan u smislu da ćemo znati samo dijelove prošlosti i djelomičan u smislu da je ono čega se sjećamo uvijek pod utjecajem naše perspektive.

Moramo imati na umu da su rekonstrukcije ili upotrebe prošlosti integralni dijelovi ideologije sadašnjosti. Kad gledam izložbe sjećanja, volim se pitati zašto se sada sjećamo određenih izložaba. Neke izložbe sjećanja, poput Archive in Motion, koja slavi pedesetu godišnjicu Documente, komemorativne su. Druge, poput budimpeštanske izložbe Prelom kolektiva, kuda.org i grupe tranzit. hu iz Budimpešte, iscjeliteljske su i kompenzacijske, namijenjene ispravljanju nevidljivosti i potiskivanja u prošlosti. Neke, poput Voids, namjerno su provokativne i izostavljaju neke detalje iz konteksta. Recenzije Voids kao izložbe većinom su vrlo kritične prema izostavljanju podataka iz izložbenog prostora iako istodobno priznaju da katalog sadrži obilje detaljnih informacija i interpretacija. Za mene, pitanje je zašto su kustosi mislili da je tako važno da izložbeni prostor bude lišen podataka.

Drugi način da odgovorim na vaše pitanje je pretpostaviti da je svaka rekonstrukcija pogrešna ili, rečeno u pozitivnijem svjetlu, work in progress. Povijest izložaba tako je nova da moramo očekivati pogreške. Ako su te pogreške iskrene, računa se konstrukcija skele na kojoj se gradi – i, ako je nužno, iznova gradi povijest izložaba.

Voids. A Retrospective, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2009. © Centre Pompidou / Georges Meguerditchian

Voids. A Retrospective, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2009. © Centre Pompidou / Georges Meguerditchian

14 15Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Zašto ste počeli istraživati to razdoblje?kuda.org: To razdoblje povijesti kulture Novog Sada počeli smo istraživati prije svega zbog općeg lokalnog i šireg neznanja o postignućima neoavangardnih praksa i njihovoj važnosti za suvremeni lokalni kulturni krajolik. Te prakse u znatnoj su mjeri marginalizirane u povijesti umjetnosti i mislimo da je važno prevrednovati ih i ponuditi novo čitanje njihove važnosti. Manje kao novu historizaciju, a više kao analizu specifičnosti društvenog angažmana te procesnog i lokalnog karaktera tih praksa; prema genealogiji suvremenih umjetničkih praksa, kako sažeto objašnjava jedna od naših partnerskih organizacija, kolektiv Prelom iz Beograda, govoreći o toj vrsti

“arheologije”. Ta izjava o marginalizaciji možda je kontroverzna i poziva na suprotstavljanje, jer nekoliko uglednih povjesničara umjetnosti i kustosa iz Srbije posvetili su neke svoje izložbe i publikacije tim praksama i/ili pojedinim osobama. Naravno, to smatramo legitimnim kunsthistoričarskim pristupom temi, ali zapravo se ne bismo željeli time baviti na taj način. Naime, svi ti klasični kunsthistoričarski pristupi obično tumače neoavangardne prakse gotovo isključivo u odnosu prema međunarodnim pokretima konceptualne umjetnosti iz tog vremena. Mogli bi pružiti važne uvide u te prakse, ali ih u isti mah izbjegavaju kontekstualizirati u širu društveno-političku okolinu socijalizma u bivšoj Jugoslaviji: 1948. godina, uvođenje radničkog samoupravljanja početkom 1950-ih, položaj socijalističkog realizma u umjetnosti, ekonomske i kulturalne reforme od 1965, omladinski i studentski pokreti 1968, okupacija Čehoslovačke i i njezine posljedice za prestrukturiranje društvenog i političkog života u Jugoslaviji početkom 1970-ih, jugoslavenska omladinska kultura, jugoslavenske službene institucije za kulturu, alternativna kultura itd. (da navedemo samo neke aspekte), što sve u svemu pruža drukčiji pogled i razumijevanje tog važnog razdoblja naše zajedničke povijesti kroz neoavangardne prakse, i na njih same kao takve.

umjetničke prakse kao dijelu socijalističkog društva postaje nepotkrijepljeno, te se stoga raskida sa suvremenim poimanjem socijalizma kao posve negativnoga. To romantično stajalište želimo kritizirati; baveći se tim kulturalnim i intelektualnim naslijeđem postavljamo se daleko od etnonacionalista, koji negirajući vrijednosti jugoslavenskog socijalizma uspješno utiru put takozvanom

“neideološkom” prodoru liberalne demokracije i slobodnog tržišta. Umjesto toga, njihov umjetnički aktivizam treba promatrati kao “kritičko obogaćivanje socijalističkog diskursa” i svojevrsno “antidisidentsko disidentstvo”, kako je napisao Branislav Dimitrijević analizirajući lik i djelo filmskog režisera Želimira Žilnika, jednoga od protagonista te scene. Ta izjava, naravno, nije rezultat nepromišljene generalizacije nego se oslanja upravo na prakse novosadske neoavangardne scene i njena postignuća.

A sada, malo faktografije uz završne riječi o tome zašto se bavimo tim praksama. Ta konkretna umjetnička praksa cvjetala je unutar službene kulturne institucije nazvane Tribina mladih krajem 1960-ih i početkom 1970-ih. No u razdbolju od 1972. do 1974. došlo je do pomaka prema zatvaranju dotad relativno otvorenog područja kulture, što se poklapalo s jačanjem partijskih tvrdolinijaša u jugoslavenskim političkim strukturama. U Novom Sadu to se snažno odrazilo na dotad funkcionalnu kulturnu politiku, što je rezultiralo slabljenjem uredništava službenih institucija i časopisa. To je značilo i ukidanje (i birokratiziranje) progresivne umjetnosti i intelektualnih protagonista i praksa s Tribine mladih i časopisa oko nje. Nakon tog ukidanja više nije bilo relevantnog okvira u kulturnim institucijama Novog Sada koje bi mogle pratiti promjene društvene i političke klime i adekvatno ih analizirati. To je jedan od razloga tihe transformacije realsocijalističke državne doktrine u nacionalsocijalističku krajem 1980-ih, koja se dogodila preko noći. Na području umjetnosti i kulture, vakuum koji je postojao nakon tog izumiranja kritičkog diskursa povezanog s Tribinom mladih doveo je do trajnog nedostatka javne kritičke refleksije o fašizmu 1990-ih, do današnjeg desničarskog ekstremizma i neoliberalizma.

intervju s članovima kuda.orgO izložbi i istraživačkom projektu “Trajni čas umetnosti, novosadska avangarda

1960-ih i 1970-ih” Centra za nove medije kuda.org, Novi Sad

Citati iz dokumentarnog filma

“Tribina mladih”

autor: Nenad Milošević

Produkcija: Kino klub Novi Sad, kuda.org

Godina: 2009

“... Mogu slobodno da kažem, zaista neopterećen, da je novosadska scena u to vreme, a to će se posle pokazati malo evidentnije, bila jedna od najoštrijih scena u Jugoslaviji, na nivou jedne angažovane i estetičke kulture, zato što je imala jednu notu provokacije, političkog reagovanja i jedne umetničke prakse koja nije imala svoju zaštitu. Niko nije stajao iza te umetnosti. Ona je bila vrlo originalna, vrlo hrabra i gotovo do danas nije dobila neku svoju istorijsku relevancu”

Božidar Mandić, umjetnik, osnivač Porodice bistrih potoka

“... To su bile, dakle, godine kada se jugoslovenska kulturna scena jako otvarala i kada su, u krajnjoj liniji, na mnogim pozicijama u državi, u kulturnim politikama bili ljudi iz Titove garniture, ali intelektualci. Veliki deo njih su bili pripadnici nekadašnjeg nadrealističkog pokreta kao što su Dušan Matić, Marko Ristić, Mima Dedinac i Oskar Davičo, dakle ljudi sa velikim iskustvom. Oni su pomogli da ta jugoslovenska kulturna scena, posle obračuna sa Informbiroom, posle 1948, posle ‘50, da se ona naglo okrene jednoj praksi koja je sasvim različita od prakse drugih socijalističkih zemalja i od njihovog modela socijalističkog realizma...”

Želimir Žilnik, filmski reditelj iz Novog Sada

Suvremena instrumentalizacija umjetnosti i kulture u okviru takozvanih “kreativnih industrija” širi se nekritički i nereflektirano. Ovim projektom se pitamo: kako se uobičajena praksa zaštite i konzervacije našeg kulturnog naslijeđa može transcendirati i postati političkim agensom danas? Može li specifično bavljenje tim naslijeđem postati instrument za analizu suvremene kreativnosti u kulturi?

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Zašto ste odlučili predstaviti dokumente umjesto umjetničkih djela?kuda.org: Prvo, postoji vrlo jednostavan i gotovo samorazumljiv razlog. Tijekom 1969-70. većina protagonista novosadske neoavangardne scene surađivala je u studentskom časopisu Index, službenom časopisu Udruženja studenata Vojvodine, malo prije sudjelovanja u Tribini mladih, gdje su bili zaposleni kao urednici muzičkog, filmskog i javnog debatnog programa. U tom studentskom časopisu objavili su neke od svojih najvažnijih radova (manifesta, vizualne poezije, dokumentacije akcija i intervencija itd, u kombinaciji s prijevodima važnih teorijskih djela i kritičkih tekstova), i radovi s izložbe Trajni čas umetnosti uzeti su upravo iz tog časopisa. To je razlog zašto smo željeli kombinirati taj izvorni medij časopisa s izložbom te stvoriti svojevrsne “tapete”, “zidne novine”. To nam omogućuje da lako radimo sa sadržajem, pretiskavamo ga i distribuiramo, što se odnosi i na nevažnost jedinstvenosti i originalnosti, dakle na reproducibilnost njihovog rada. Drugo, nismo željeli izložiti umjetničke predmete (iako su načinjeni od jeftinog i jednostavnog materijala i formata), nego “proizvesti dokumente”, tj. kontekstualizirati njihov umjetnički rad tako da postane “dokument” koji svjedoči o širem kontekstu tog razdoblja. Postavili smo i dvije knjige nastale u okviru tog projekta kao da su izlošci – i one su još jedan eksplikativni format “dokumenta”.

“... [Govori o Tribini mladih] Kroz ovu zgradu, kroz ova vrata, u vreme o kome sada govorimo, kada sam došao iz Zrenjanina u Novi Sad i postao urednik časopisa Polja, ulazili su ti mladi ljudi kao u svoju kuću. Ja sam kao urednik Polja pokušao da otvorim vrata njima, da budu prisutni, a umetnost koju su oni donosili bila je zasnovana na nečemu što do tada nije bilo poznato. To su bili umetnici koji su hteli ne da imitiraju svet, nego da bace senku sveta unutar jezika, to jest da pronađu tu techné, tu pozadinu, tu materiju od koje je ovaj svet sastavljen pa i mi sami...”

Vujica Rešin-Tucić, umetnik, pesnik, urednik časopisa Polja u periodu 1967-71.godina

“... Tako da smo mi, razume se, i u kinematografiji tada krenuli na teme koje su potpuno polemično počele da propituju sva ta pitanja sa kojima se suočavamo – od tog centralnog pitanja, taj sistem u kome živimo, da li on ima bilo kakvu budućnost? Da li on, na neki način, može da prevaziđe tu konfliktnu situaciju, da sa jedne strane govori da revolucija donosi benefit svima, a sa druge strane mi vidimo da je to društvo klasno podeljeno. Pa do toga da, kada je reč o umetničkoj praksi, da je tu na talasu onoga što se dešavalo u svetu došlo do jedne eksplozije novih umetničkih formi i pokreta...”

Želimir Žilnik, filmski reditelj iz Novog Sada

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Vaše izložbe prikazuju dokumente duž vremenskog pravca. Zašto ste smatrali da je važno načiniti kronologiju ili povijest lokalnih neoavangardnih događaja?kuda.org: Mogućnost stvaranja vlastite povijesti – autopovijesti umjetničke prakse važna je pozicija. To je već postojeća ideja, koju su razvili razni umjetnici, na primjer Goran Đorđević. To je istraživanje blisko onome što pokušava postići East Art Map, putem izjave da povijest nije dana i treba je konstruirati – u ovom slučaju, također daleko od zapadnoevropskog elitističkog kunsthistoričarskog diskursa. Načela kolektivizma i suradnje integrirana su u taj projekt jer se on zasad ostvaruje u kombinaciji: sudjelovanja samih protagonista te neoavangardne scene, njihovih sjećanja, arhiva, misli, s našom pozicijom u odnosu na to bogato i važno naslijeđe. Ovdje ću iskoristiti priliku da citiram jednu od najvažnijih osoba sa šire scene toga vremena (a i današnjeg), (bivšeg) prevodioca, (bivšeg) filmskog kritičara, (bivšeg) urednika, (bivšeg) grafičkog dizajnera i (bivšeg) asistenta režije Branka Vučićevića iz Beograda – prema njemu, povijest umjetnosti 20. stoljeća nije povijest slikarstva i

kiparstva, kako se obično ističe, nego povijest filma, fotografije i grafičkog dizajna. U potpunosti se slažem s time! Očito, to je gledište osobe koja nije povjesničar umjetnosti. Naravno, jedan od važnih razloga za kronološku rekonstrukciju te lokalne povijesti je nevidljivost tog naslijeđa u lokalnoj okolini, njegova marginalizacija, kao što je već spomenuto ranije.

Drugi važan razlog za primjenu kronologije događaja je to što je ta kronologija vrlo osobita po tome što prati nekoliko presudnih trenutaka u razvoju kulture u bivšoj Jugoslaviji.

link: http://www.kuda.org/en/continuous_art

Trajni čas umetnosti / The Continuous Art Class, The Novi Sad Neo-Avantgarde of the 1960’s and 1970’s, Museum of Conemporary Art Vojvodina, Novi Sad, 2005

Prvo, postoji neoavangarda povezana s Tribinom mladih, što je trajalo od 1969. do 1972, i bilo pod jakim utjecajem beogradskog i međunarodnih omladinskih pokreta 1968, kad je Tribina mladih predstavljala radikalne zahtjeve za demokratizacijom kulture koji su dolazili od umjetničkih i kulturnih krugova u Novom Sadu. Nakon što im je onemogućeno sudjelovanje u službenoj kulturnoj instituciji (Tribini mladih), protagonisti novosadske neoavangardne scene pojačali su svoj rad i postojanje u nezavisnom, intimnom prostoru jednog umjetničkog ateljea (Studio DT 20), u razdoblju od 1972. do 1975. (približno), što je predstavljalo međustupanj, prijelazno razdoblje koje je dovelo do odluke većine neoavangardnih protagonista da se prestanu baviti umjetnošću. Na kraju, nekoliko godina nakon povlačenja iz službene institucije kulture, većina neoavangardnih umjetnika donijela je odluku da se više ne bavi umjetnošću, nego su umjesto toga organizirali privremene gradske komune i zajedno igrali nogomet. Jedan od umjetnika s te scene, Slobodan Tišma, prekinuo je svoju javnu umjetničku praksu i zajedno s Čedomirom Drčom izveo nekoliko radova i performancea koji su se duboko usredotočili na smrt utopijskih projekata i na kraj modernizma. Stvorili su radove kao što su Invisible art, Invisible band i Invisible artist, koji su bili dio vremenski zasnovanog performancea nazvanoga THE END koji se odvijao između 1972. i 1977. U tom razdoblju su Slobodan Tišma i Čedomir Drča svakoga dana pred mjesnom trgovinom pili američku Coca Colu i i ruski Kvas. Za njih, to je bio posljednji performance i kraj njihove umjetnosti. Dakle, to su tri glavna trenutka koje smo htjeli naglasiti u našoj, specifičnoj kronologiji događaja unutar te izložbe – linija koja vodi kroz političke i kulturne procese i previranja u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, prema konačnom razrješenju neoavangardnih praksa...

Drugo, gotovo svi protagonisti novosadske neoavangardne scene najčešće nisu bili umjetnici nego studenti prava, sociologije, filozofije i književnosti. Njihove prakse (akcije, intervencije, izložbe, manifesti i performancei) katkad su bliže praksama Fluxusa nego konceptualnoj umjetnosti kao takvoj. No zanimljivije je, a i relevantnije, to što njihove prakse treba protumačiti i u odnosu prema tekućim raspravama o autonomiji umjetnosti, progresivnim političkim i estetičkim teorijama, alternativnim oblicima organiziranja društvenog i političkog života, uključujući i potragu za odlučno nedogmatskom lijevom pozicijom u društvu bivše Jugoslavije. Uobičajeno romantično shvaćanje o njihovoj “pobuni” i “ekscesima”, o cenzuriranju i zabranjivanju kritičke

Klasični

kunsthistoričarski

pristupi tumače

neoavangardne

prakse gotovo

isključivo u

odnosu prema

međunarodnim

pokretima

konceptualne

umjetnosti i

izbjegavaju

kontekstualizirati

u širu društveno-

političku okolinu

socijalizma u bivšoj

Jugoslaviji

Povijest umjetnosti

20. stoljeća nije

povijest slikarstva

i kiparstva, kako

se obično ističe,

nego povijest filma,

fotografije i grafičkog

dizajna

16 17Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Why did you start to research this period?kuda.org: We started to research this particular period of Novi Sad’s cultural history first of all because of the general local and broader ignorance of the achievements of neo-avant-garde practices and their significance for the local contemporary cultural landscape. Those practices are quite marginalized from art history and we found it important to re-interpret and to offer a new reading of their importance. Less in terms of a new historization, but more in terms of analyzing and actualizing the specificity of social engagement and the processual and local character of those practices; towards a genealogy of contemporary art practices, as one of our partner organizations, Prelom Collective from Belgrade, pregnantly explains while talking about this kind of “archaeology”. This statement about marginalization could also be controversial and easily opposed, since there are several prominent art historians and curators from Serbia who dedicated some of their exhibitions and publications to those particular practices and/or individual personae. Of course, we find this as a legitimate kunst historical approach to the theme, but actually not the way we would like to deal with it. Namely, all of those classical art historical approaches usually interpret neo-avant-garde practices almost exclusively in relation to the international conceptual art movement from that period of time. It could give an important view into those practices, but it is at the same time avoiding to contextualize them in the broader socio-political environment of former Yugoslav socialism: 1948 and the early 1950s with the introduction of workers’ self-management, the position of socialist realism in art, the economic and cultural reforms dating from 1965, the youth and student movements of 1968, the occupation of Czechoslovakia and its consequences on the re-structuralisation of social and political life in Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1970s, Yugoslav youth culture, Yugoslav official cultural institutions, alternative culture, etc. (just to name a few), which all in all give a different angle to look at and to understand this important period of our common history, through neo-avant-garde practices and themselves as such.

the non-dogmatic left position in former Yugoslav society. The usual romanticism in looking at their “rebellion” and

“excessive”, censored and imprisoned critical art practice as a part of socialist societies is becoming non-substantial, therefore they are breaking up with the contemporary notion towards socialism as being exclusively negative. This is exactly the position that we wish to criticize, dealing with this cultural and intellectual heritage we position ourselves away from the ethno-nationalists, who negating the values of Yugoslav socialism are successfully paving the way to the so-called “non-ideological” breakthrough of liberal democracy and the free market. Rather, their artistic activism should be observed as “a critical enrichment of socialist discourse” and a sort of “anti-dissident dissidentism”, as Branislav Dimitrijević wrote while analyzing the work and figure of movie director Želimir Žilnik, one of the protagonists of that scene. This statement, of course, is not the result of an unthoughtful generalization, but it relies on the very practices of Novi Sad’s neo-avant-garde scene and its achievements.

Now, a little bit of factography with an epilogue as to the reasons why we are dealing with those practices... This specific art practice flourished at and within the official cultural institution called The Youth Tribune at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. However, in the period between 1972 and 1974, there was a shift towards closing in the so far relatively open cultural field, which corresponded with the overbalancing of party hardliners in Yugoslav political structures. In Novi Sad, it strongly reflected thereupon on functional cultural policy, which resulted in depriving the editorial boards of official institutions and magazines. That also meant banning (and bureaucratising) progressive art and intellectual protagonists and practices from The Youth Tribune and the magazines around it. With this dismissal, a relevant framework no longer existed in Novi Sad’s cultural institutions that could accompany the changes in the social and political climate and analyse them in an adequate way. This is one of the reasons for the silent transformation from real-socialists to national-socialists state doctrine at the end of the 1980s, which took place overnight. In the field of art and culture, the vacuum which has existed since this particular extinction of critical discourse related to The Youth Tribune has resulted in the continuous lack of public critical reflection on the fascism of the 1990s, right-wing extremism and the neoliberalism of today. Contemporary instrumentalization of art and culture under the framework of so-called “creative industries” is expanding in a non-critical and unreflected way. With this project, we

interview with members of kuda.orgAbout the exhibition and research project “The Continuous Art Class: the Novi Sad Neo-Avant-garde of the 1960s

and 1970s” by New Media Center_kuda.org, Novi Sad

Excerpts from the documentary movie

“The Youth Tribune”,

Author: Nenad Milošević

Production: Kino klub Novi Sad, kuda.org

Year: 2009

“... And I could freely say, without a second thought, that the Novi Sad art scene at that time, and that will maybe become more evident later, was one of the sharpest scenes in Yugoslavia, when we talk about engaged and aesthetic culture, because it had a note of provocation, political reaction and artistic practice that wasn’t protected. Nobody was supporting that art. It was very original, very brave and until today hasn’t received its historical relevance...”

Božidar Mandić, artist, founder of the commune Porodica bistrih potoka

“... Those were the years when the Yugoslav cultural scene started opening up and many positions in the government regarding culture issues were occupied by people from Tito’s government, but intellectuals as well, and a great number of them were members of the past surrealist movement such as Dušan Matić, Marko Ristić, Mima Dedinac and Oskar Davičo, in other words people with great experience. They helped the Yugoslav culture scene, after the divide with the Informbiro in 1948 and after 1950, to take a decisive turn toward completely different artistic practices than those in other socialist countries and their model of socialist realism....”

Želimir Žilnik, movie director from Novi Sad

are wondering: How can this usual practice of the protection and conservation of our cultural heritage be transcended and how can it become a political agent of today? Could a specific way of dealing with this heritage become a tool for analysing contemporary cultural creation?

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Why did you decide to present documents instead of artworks?kuda.org: First, there is a quite simple and almost self-explanatory reason. During 1969–70, most of the protagonists of the Novi Sad neo-avant-garde scene collaborated in the student magazine Index, the official magazine of the Association of Students of Vojvodina, just before their involvement with The Youth Tribune where they were employed as editors of the music, film and public discussions program. In this student magazine, they published some of their most important works (such as manifestos, visual poetry, documentation of actions and interventions, etc. in combination with translations of important theoretical work and critical writings of their own) and most of the works at the exhibition The Continuous Art Class are exactly taken over from that magazine. This is the reason why we wanted to combine this original medium of a magazine and an exhibition and to create a sort of “wallpaper”,

“a wall-magazine”. This enabled us to easily work with, re-print and re-distribute the content, which also refers to the non-importance of uniqueness and originality, therefore to the reproducibility of their work. The other thing was that we didn’t want to exhibit art pieces (even if they were made in a cheap and reproducible format and material), but rather “to produce documents”, i.e., to contextualize their art work so it becomes “a document” witnessing a wider context of that period of time. We also placed two books produced within this project as they are exhibits, again, they are another more explicative format of “documents”.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Your exhibitions display documents along a timeline. Why did you find it important to construct a chronology or history of local neo-avant-garde art events?kuda.org: The possibility of creating one’s own history – auto-history – of art practices is an important position. This is an already existing idea which has been developed by several artists, for example in Goran Đorđević’s work. I would say that this research is close to what East Art Map tries to achieve, in a manner of the statement that history is not given and that in needs to be constructed – in this case, also away from elitist Western art history discourse. The principles of collectivism and collaboration are integrated in this project since it has so far been realized in combination with the participation of the very protagonists of this neo-avant-garde scene, their memories, archives, thoughts, and our position towards this rich and important heritage. Here, I will use the opportunity to quote one of the most important personae of the wider scene of that time (and today still), (ex-) translator, (ex-) film critic, (ex-) editor, (ex-) graphic designer and (ex-) assistant director, Branko Vučićević from Belgrade – according to him, the history of art of the 20th century is not a history of painting and sculpture as it is usually pointed out, but a history of film, photography and graphic design. I couldn’t agree more! This is

“... [Speaking about The Youth Tribune] Through this building, through this door, in the time that we are talking about now, when I came to Novi Sad from Zrenjanin and became the editor of the magazine Polja, young people entered here like in their own house. As the editor of Polja I tried to open the door for them, to be present, and the art that they brought was based on something that wasn’t known back then. They were artists who didn’t want to imitate the world, but to cast a shadow of the world inside the language, i.e., to find the background, techné, the matter that makes the world and ourselves...”

Vujica Rešin-Tucić, arist, poet, editor-in-chief of the literary magazine Polja in the period of 1967-71

“... So it is understandable that we in cinematography started working on subjects that were critically questioning all the issues that we were confronted with. Meaning, starting from the central question, does this system that we live in have any future, can it overcome that conflict situation? On the one hand, revolution speaks about it that it will benefit all, and on the other, we see that society is class society and socially divided. And when we talk about artistic practice that it was along the lines of what was happening in the world of that time, that it was the time of explosion of new artistic forms and different movements...”

Želimir Žilnik, movie director from Novi Sad

clearly the view-point of a person who is not an art historian. Of course, one important reason to reconstruct this local history chronologically is because of the invisibility of this heritage in the local environment, its marginalization, as I explained earlier.

The other important reason for applying a chronology of events is that this chronology is very specific in the terms that it follows several crucial points in the development of culture in former Yugoslavia. First, there is the neo-avant-garde in relation to and involvement with The Youth Tribune which lasted from 1969–1972, and which was heavily influenced by the Belgrade and international youth movements of 1968, where The Youth Tribune stood for the radical demands for the democratization of culture which came from the artistic and cultural circles in Novi Sad. After being withheld from participation in the official cultural institution (The Youth Tribune), the protagonists of Novi Sad’s neo-avant-garde scene intensified their work and dwelling in the independent, intimate space of one artist’s studio (Studio DT 20), in the period between 1972–1975 (approximately), it presented a mid-stage, traversable period that led to the decision of the most of neo-avant-garde protagonists to abandon the practising of art. Finally, some years after the withdrawal from the official cultural institution, most of the

link: http://www.kuda.org/en/continuous_art

Secondly, almost all of the protagonists from the Novi Sad neo-avant-garde scene were not artists, but rather students of law, sociology, philosophy, and literature. Their practices (actions, interventions, exhibitions, manifestos, and performances) were sometimes closer to the Fluxus practices than to conceptual art as such. But what is more interesting and relevant is that their practices should also be interpreted in relation to ongoing discussions about the autonomy of art, progressive political and art theories, alternative forms of organizing social and political life, including the quest for determining

Trajni čas umetnosti / The Continuous Art Class, The Novi Sad Neo-Avantgarde of the 1960’s and 1970’s, Museum of Conemporary Art Vojvodina, Novi Sad, 2005

neo-avant-garde artists made the decision not to practice art anymore, but instead they organised temporary city communes and played football together. One of the artists from the scene, Slobodan Tišma, cancelled his public art practice and, together with Čedomir Drča, created several works and performances that focused deeply on the death of utopian projects and the end of modernism. They created works such as Invisible art, Invisible band or Invisible artist that were part of a time-based performance called THE END that happened between 1972 and 1977. During that period, Slobodan Tišma and Čedomir Drča drank American Coca Cola and Russian Kvas every day with friends in front of a local store. For them, this was the last performance and the end of their art. So, these are three crucial points that we wanted to stress in our specific chronology of events within this exhibition

– a line that leads through political and cultural developments and turmoil in the former Yugoslavia and towards a final resolution of the neo-avant-garde practices...

Dealing with

this cultural and

intellectual heritage

we position ourselves

away from the ethno-

nationalists, who

negating the values

of Yugoslav socialism

are successfully

paving the way

to the so-called

“non-ideological”

breakthrough of

liberal democracy

and the free market.

Rather, their artistic

activism should

be observed as “a

critical enrichment of

socialist discourse”

18 19Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Vaše izložbe prikazuju publikaciju u izložbenom prostoru. Zašto smatrate važnim da izložite te dokumente uz to što ih objavljujete u štampanom obliku, kao publikaciju?Jelena Vesić: Forma do koje smo došli razmišljajući o Slučaju SKC-a sedamdesetih godina je istraživačka sveska, koju smo kasnije izložili kao svesku razvijenu u prostoru i objavili kao publikaciju. Kada smo radili na toj istraživačkoj svesci mislili smo je pre svega prostorno, odnosno kroz format izložbe. Interesovalo nas je da mislimo izložbu kao nekonformističku i didaktičku formu koja je istovremeno i istorijska i savremena. Međutim, na kraju smo odlučili da izložbeni materijal uvežemo kao fotokopiranu skriptu koja može da se slobodno distribuira i da onda Slučaj SKC-a postane izložba koja može da se ponese u džepu.

U prvoj ediciji izložbe prikazanoj u Ljubljani pod nazivom SKC u ŠKUC-u, uz printana dokumenta dodali smo i jedan CD sa audio sadržajima. Možda je interesantno da kažem i kako su nastali ti audio sadržaji. Naravno, u procesu institucionalizacije konceptualnih umetničkih praksi, mnogi artefakti koji su imali status dokumenta dobili su status umetničkog dela, pa samim tim i tržišnu vrednost. Među njima su bili i brojni tekstovi koji su postali deo kolekcija različitih muzeja. Mi smo želeli da izložimo isključivo dokumente i samim tim smo bili u situaciji da neke tekstove, koji su umeđuvremenu dobili status umetničkih dela prevedemo nazad u dokument. Za tu priliku smo se koristili audio-formatom i čitanjem teksta – nekom vrstom kontra-prevodjenja.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Kako ste započeli da istražujete to razdoblje?Jelena Vesić: Sedamdesete u Jugoslaviji ili, da budem specifičnija, istraživanje konceptualne umetničke scene, lokalno obuhvaćene pojmom Nove umetničke prakse, svakako je značajno za ispitivanje genealogije savremene umetnosti, za njeno današnje shvatanje i praktikovanje. Sedamdesete nas se naročito tiču ukoliko želimo da diskutujemo tzv. kritičke umetničke prakse, sa današnjih pozicija ili, pak, delovanje u polju alternativne kulture. Interesovanje za institucionalne i ideološke modele koji oblikuju dominantne prakse savremene umetnosti i specifično prakse vezane za ovaj region, bile su osnovno polazište naše analize. Pokušali smo da deo odgovora pronađemo u sedamdesetima i konkretno na primeru Beogradske konceptuale i slučaju Studentskog kulturnog centra.

Naše interesovanje za sedamdesete i, uopšte, promenu kulturne paradigme nakon 1968. nije samo nostalgična potraga za izgubljenim alternativima ili revalorizacija manje poznate istorije u vidu nekakvog profesionalističkog kurioziteta, već pokušaj frontalnog sučeljavanja sa mitovima i realnim učincima kolektivnog delovanja jedne generacije umetnika, kritičara i kustosa koji su kreirali određeni kulturni prostor, a koji je aktivan i danas u izmenjenim geo-političkim uslovima. Taj prostor danas naseljavaju brojne nezavisne organizacije, kolektivi i pojedinci koji su nastavili da deluju u smeru eksperimentalnog pristupa kreiranju i predstavljanju umetnosti, kao i nepomirljivosti sa hegemonim kulturnim praksama. U

prostoru bivše Jugoslavije, danas poznate i kao Zapadni Balkan, te hegemone prakse bi se zasnivale na dve snažne tendencije: jedno je tržišna logika umetnosti, koja prati ponovnu instalaciju kapitalističkog poretka u malim nacionalnim državama, a drugo je post-socijalističko stanje, odnosno anti-komunistički konsenzus kao master narativ. Usled promene tendencije dolazi i do revizije istorijskih umetničkih praksi, pa i statusa savremene umetnosti, i to na više nivoa. Jedan očigledan primer bilo bi mišljenje kritičkih umetničkih praksi, formiranih unutar socijalističke države kroz figuru disidenta, odnosno kroz figuru pobunjene individue u

razgovor Prelom kolektivDóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László

Danas je potrebno

podsetiti se na to da

su Nove umetničke

prakse izrasle iz

šezdesetosmaškog

slogana “Dole crvena

buržoazija”, kao i da

je njihovo delovanje

bilo zasnovano na

permanentnom

revolucionisanju

praksi.

U društvenom smislu

to je podrazumevalo

potragu za više

socijalizma, a u

kulturnom smislu

– borbu protiv

birokratizovanog

sistema kulture i

vladajuće umetnosti

“visokog evropskog

esteticizma”

totalitarnom kolektivističkom sistemu. U tom kontekstu je svakako interesantno izneti neke podatke iz konstitutivnih dokumenata SKC-a, kao i konkretnih praksi koje su se tu razvijale i na tom primeru prikazati pozicije oficijelne sfere i tzv. alternative unutar Socijalističke Jugoslavije sedamdesetih godina.

Ma koliko to zvučalo paradoksalno, danas je potrebno podsetiti se na to da su Nove umetničke prakse izrasle iz šezdesetosmaškog slogana “Dole crvena buržoazija”, kao i da je njihovo delovanje bilo zasnovano na permanentnom revolucionisanju praksi. U društvenom smislu to je podrazumevalo potragu za više socijalizma, a u kulturnom smislu – borbu protiv birokratizovanog sistema kulture i vladajuće umetnosti “visokog evropskog esteticizma” koja je funkcionisala kao neka vrsta spoja modernističke estetike i buržoaske kulturne logike. Takođe, jedan od materijalističkih učinaka ove revizije i promene paradigme “savremena umetnost” učinila je da nekadašnje kolektivne prakse, danas zameni tržišni individualizam i uopšteno, institucionalni diskurs “velikih autora”. To se može posmatrati i kroz prizmu odnosa prvobitne redakcije kulturnog programa SKC-a i današnjeg pozicioniranja umetnika, kustosa i kritičara koji su je činili.

Ono što je interesovalo Prelom kolektiv u smislu – zašto sedamdesete, zašto Jugoslavija, zašto Nove umetničke prakse, zašto SKC – počivalo je na želji i potrebi da se prikažu neke bitne promene u umetnosti koje su se desile na institucionalnom planu, ali i da ukaže na relevantnost mišljenja, kao i kritičkog i transformativnog potencijala Novih umetničkih praksi kroz konkretne primere koji se i danas mogu smatrati relevantnim.

Naše istraživanje Slučaj SKC-a sedamdesetih godina polazi od čuvene fotografije zida galerije SKC-a, ispred koga, u frontalnom nizu, stoje centralni protagonisti Nove umetničke prakse sedamdesetih godina ... dakle neke vrste “idealne slike” koja je reprezentativna za institucionalne prakse SKC-a i koja uvezuje spontanost jednog radnog kolektiva koji deli određene ideje i uverenja, sa onim što nazivamo “progresivna institucija kulture”. To je slika koja je i danas aktuelna i koja ne predstavlja samo estetizovani objekt prošlih vremena – ona u sebi nosi i dalje važna pitanja, a jedno od njih je svakako i pitanje alternativnog delovanja u polju kulture.

Drugačije rečeno, sam istorijski period koji uzimamo za objekat svoje analize i konačno izložbe Slučaj SKC-a nije nam bitan po sebi. Ono što nam je zapravo bilo bitno jeste način na koji se sam taj objekat može iskoristiti kako bi se postavila aktuelna pitanja.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Zašto ste odlučili da predstavite dokumente umesto umetničkih radova?Jelena Vesić: Dokumentarna forma izložbe ponekad omogućava da se određena kustosko-istraživačka teza iznese na neposredniji način. Razliku između izložbe umetničkih radova i izložbe dokumenata možemo pronaći i u produkcionoj osnovi: na primer izložba umetničkih radova zahteva dugotrajnu administraciju, solidne budžete i institucionalnu infrastrukturu, dok dokumentarna izložba može biti i neka vrsta taktičke forme, nešto do čega se može lakše doći ili što je u produkcijskom smislu svima dostupno. Dokumentarna forma je istovremeno didaktička, jer se zapravo artefakti ne izlažu kao estetski objekti, već kao pokazni materijal. U tom smislu, dokumentarna forma nas uvek uvlači u područje eksperimenta, kada je reč o kustoskom radu. Za izložbu Slučaj SKC-a sedamdesetih godina Prelom kolektiv se odlučio za građenje narativa kroz sučeljavanje teksta i slika, što je zapravo metod koji je nastao kroz formiranje časopisa Prelom, kao časopisa za sliku i politiku.

Jedan interesantan istorijski primer dokumentarne izlagačke forme, nedavno su rekonstruisale kustoskinje kolektiva WHW kroz analizu Didaktičke izložbe grupe Exat 51. Izložba se desila 1957. godine u Gradskoj galeriji suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu. Unutrašnji narativ te izložbe je bila moderna umetnost, dok je unutrašnji narativ izložbe Slučaj SKC-a savremena umetnost kao kritička i kolektivistička praksa.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Your exhibitions display publications in the exhibition space, why do you find it important to exhibit these documents in addition to publishing them?

interview Prelom kolektivDóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László

Our interest in

the 70s and, more

generally, in the

change of cultural

paradigms after

1968, is not merely

a nostalgic quest for

lost alternatives or a

reevaluation of the

less known part of

history as a sort of

professional curiosity,

but an attempt at

confronting the

myths and the

real effects of the

collective activity of a

generation of artists,

art critics, and

curators who created

a particular cultural

space, which is active

even today, albeit in

altered geo-political

circumstances

Političke prakse (post)jugoslovenske umetnosti: RETROSPEKTIVA 01, javno vođenje kroz postavku izložbe (kustoskinja: Jelena Vesić)Political Practices of (Post)-Yugoslav Art: RETROSPECTIVE 01 (a guided tour through the exhibition). Curator: Jelena Vesićsnimio / Photo: Vladimir Jerić

Jelena Vesić: The form that we adopted while reflecting on SKC – a Case Study on the 1970s – is that of a research notebook, which we later exhibited as a notebook evolved in space and was also published in printed form. While working on that research notebook, we thought of it primarily in terms of space, that is, through the exhibition format. We wanted to consider the exhibition as a non-conformist and didactic form, which is historical and contemporary at the same time. However, we eventually decided to bind the exhibition material into a xeroxed booklet that can be distributed freely, in order to turn SKC – a Case Study on the 1970s into an exhibition that can be taken home in a pocket.

In the first edition of the exhibition, which took place in Ljubljana under the title “SKC in ŠKUC”, the printed documents were accompanied by a CD with audio materials. It may be of some interest to say a few words on how those audio materials were produced. Naturally, in the process of institutionalizing conceptual artistic practices, many artifacts that had the status of a document acquired the additional status of an artwork, which gave them market value. Among them, there were many texts that became a part of the collection of various museums. We, of course, wanted to exhibit exclusively documents and this very fact brought us into a situation where we had to translate certain texts, which had meanwhile acquired the status of artworks, back into the documentary form. To that purpose, we used the audio-format and read out the texts – as a sort of counter-translation.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Why did you start to research this period?Jelena Vesić: The 1970s in Yugoslavia – or, to be more specific, doing research on the conceptual art scene that was locally defined as the New Artistic Practice – were by all means significant in exploring the genealogy of contemporary art, as well as its understanding and practice today. The 70s are especially relevant when discussing the so-called critical artistic practices from current positions, or the activities in the field of alternative culture. Interest in the institutional and ideological models that informed the dominant practices of contemporary art, specifically those associated with this region, were the starting point for our analysis. We tried to find some of the answers in the 70s, more precisely in the case of Belgrade’s conceptual scene and the Student Cultural Centre (SKC).

Our interest in the 70s and, more generally, in the change of cultural paradigms after 1968, is not merely a nostalgic quest for lost alternatives or a reevaluation of the less known part of history as a sort of professional curiosity, but an attempt at confronting the myths and the real effects of the collective activity of a generation of artists, art critics, and curators who created a particular cultural space, which is active even today, albeit in altered geo-political circumstances. Today, that space is inhabited by numerous autonomous organizations, collectives, and individuals whose activities follow an experimental approach to creating and presenting art, and who have adopted a relentless attitude to hegemonic cultural practices. On the territory of former Yugoslavia, which is today also known as

20 21

the Western Balkans, these hegemonic practices have based themselves on two powerful tendencies: one being the market logic of art, which accompanies the re-installation of capitalism in small national states, and the other is the post-socialist condition, that is, the anti-communist consensus as the master narrative of the cultural and social life. This change of trend has resulted in a revision of historical artistic practices, including the status of contemporary art, on a number of different levels. An obvious example is the conceptualization of critical artistic practices in the socialist states, through the figure of the dissident as brave individual who rebelled against the totalitarian and collectivist system. In that context, one should certainly mention some facts from the constitutive documents of SKC, as well as some concrete practices that evolved there, which may serve as the basis for describing the positions of the official sphere and the so-called alternative in the Socialist Yugoslavia of the 1970s.

However paradoxical this may sound, today it needs to be emphasized that the New Artistic Practices evolved from the 1968 slogan “Down with the Red Bourgeoisie”, and that their activity was based on a permanent revolutionizing of practices. In terms of society, this entailed a quest for more socialism, while in terms of culture – fighting against the bureaucraticized cultural system and the dominant art of “high European aestheticism”, which functioned as a sort of fusion between modernist aestheticism and bourgeois cultural logic. Moreover, one of the materialist effects of this revision and the change of the “contemporary art” paradigm was that the former collective practices were substituted by market individualism and, generally speaking, by the institutional discourse of “great authors”. It can likewise be observed through the prism of the relationship between the original editorial board of SKC’s cultural programme and today’s position of those artists, curators, and art critics who constituted it.

What interested the Prelom collective in terms of “why the 1970s, why Yugoslavia, why the New Artistic Practices, why SKC” was based on the desire and need to disclose some of the crucial changes in art that occurred on the institutional level, but also to indicate the relevancy of the ideas of the New Artistic Practices, as well as their critical and transformational potential, through concrete examples that can still be considered relevant today.

Our research on SKC – a Case Study on the 1970s started from a famous photograph, which shows the crucial protagonists

of the New Artistic Practices from the 70s standing along the wall of SKC... in other words, a sort of “ideal image” that is representative of SKC’s institutional practice, linking the spontaneity of a working collective that shares certain ideas and beliefs with what we today call the “progressive institution of culture”. This image is still relevant and is far more than a mere aestheticized object from the past – it still incorporates important questions, among which there is certainly the question of alternative action in the field of culture.

In other words, the very historical period that we have made the object of our analysis and of the exhibition on The Case Study of SKC is not crucial in itself. What we actually cared about is the way in which this object could be used in order to raise topical issues.

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László: Why did you decide to present documents instead of artworks?Jelena Vesić: The documentary form of exhibition sometimes makes it possible to present a particular curatorial/research hypothesis in a more direct way. The difference between exhibiting artworks and exhibiting documents can also be seen in their production base: thus, an exhibition of artworks demands long-term administration, solid budgets, and an institutional infrastructure, whereas a documentary exhibition can also be a sort of strategic form, something that is easier to achieve and accessible to everyone in terms of production. The documentary form is didactic at the same time, since the artifacts are actually exhibited as demonstrative materials rather than as aesthetic objects. In that sense, the documentary form, in terms of curatorial work, always leads us into the field of experimentation. For the exhibition on SKC – a Case Study on the 1970s, Prelom collective opted for constructing the narrative by juxtaposing the text and the images, a method that actually evolved while creating Prelom – journal for images and politics.

An interesting historical example of the documentary form of exhibition has recently been reconstructed by the curators of the WHW collective, who have analyzed the Didactic Exhibition of the Exat 51 group. The exhibition took place in 1957, at the Municipal Gallery of Contemporary Art in Zagreb. The inner narrative of that exhibition was modern art, while the inner narrative of SKC – a Case Study on the 1970s is contemporary art as a critical and collectivist practice.

Interview Prelom kolektivDóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László

One of the materialist

effects of this revision

and the change of the

“contemporary art”

paradigm was that

the former collective

practices were

substituted by market

individualism and,

generally speaking,

by the institutional

discourse of “great

authors”

Kako teorizovati političke prakse umetnosti? Kako premostiti jaz između umetničkih i političkih teorija, i tekućih umetničkih i aktivističkih praksi? Ova pitanja

neposredno upućuju na prostor konfrontacije između teorijskih apstrakcija (koje analiziraju odnose umetnosti i politike, obično sa velike distance od stvarnih praksi) i nedovoljno elaboriranih koncepcija nastalih u praksi (bilo da su one umetničke, kustoske, kritičarske ili neke druge). Ukoliko se prenebregne sagledavanje ovog prostora kao celine svakom pokušaju analize će uvek nedostajati realni uvid u trenutno stanje stvari. Dosadašnji primeri pokazuju da će ta nedovoljnost najčešće biti ispoljena ili kroz disciplinarno zatvaranje u jezik i odgovarajuću epistemologiju (kako teorije tako i prakse umetnosti) ili kroz redukcionistički pogled na moguću efektivnost umetnosti u savremenoj teoriji i filozofiji (što se može naći, na primer, kod Ransijera, Badjua, itd.). Odgovor se, dakle, mora tražiti u uzajamnom i aktivnom testiranju pojmova i konteksta, kako teorijske tako i umetničke produkcije, radi iznalaženja zajedničkog jezika koji bi omogućio stvarni dijalog politike i umetnosti.

Danas se često koristi generički termin “kritička umetnost” kako bi se definisala određena vrsta kulturne proizvodnje. Međutim, šta ovaj termin zapravo znači? Koristeći se jezikom savremene umetničke kritike lako možemo zaključiti da je svaka umetnost kritička ili, pak, da je svaka umetnost politička. Ipak, osnovno pitanje ostaje otvoreno: o kakvoj se kritici, odnosno, o kakvoj se politici tu radi? Svest o stvarnom problemu zapravo leži u pitanju: kako (re)definisati umetnost kritike i kako je učiniti efektivnom u današnjoj situaciji?

Savremena kulturna proizvodnja prihvata kritiku kao jednu od poželjnih vrednosti savremene umetnosti. U pitanju je tendencija koja se javlja paralelno s promenama institucionalnog polja u današnjem post-welfare state kapitalizmu. Neoliberalna institucija kulture zagovara politiku transformacije iznutra (bilo da je reč o društvu, državnim institucijama kulture ili nezavisnim institucijama), što počiva na uključivanju kritike u sistem od samog početka (i, sledstveno tome, njenu aproprijaciju). Takva dinamička konstelacija proizvodi tzv. institucionalizaciju kritike, što je tema koja je tokom proteklih nekoliko godina ponovo došla u središte diskusije i to na različitim institucionalnim ili nezavisnim (samoorganizovanim) nivoima. Ta nova institucionalizacija često je praćena procesom “kulturalizacije” (političkih odnosa), tj. strategijom “izvoza” političkih problema u polje kulture. Reč je o procesima koji su posebno vidljivi na evropskim marginama i u tzv. tranzicionim društvima. Zahtevi za “kritičkom intelektualnom proizvodnjom” i “društvenom angažovanošću umetnosti”, već su upisani u programe vodećih evropskih fondacija za savremenu umetnost i kulturu.

“Nove umetničke prakse” 1960-ih i 1970-ih godina, koje predstavljaju predmet ovog istraživanja, bile su, uopšteno govoreći, razvijane kroz kritiku sitnoburžoaskog konformizma, tržišta umetnosti, institucija welfare state sistema i institucionalne birokratije i hijerarhije. Istovremeno, one su usmerene protiv buržoaskih vrednosti umetnosti u smislu

“lepe slike u bogatom enterijeru”, ali, takođe, i u smislu modernističkog formalizma, samokontemplacije i koncepta autonomije umetnosti, osmišljene kroz pojmove kao što su samodovoljnost, disciplinarno zatvaranje, profesionalna podela rada i slično. Te prakse su, shodno tome, dovodile u pitanje

ne samo status umetničkog predmeta (njegovu materijalnu formu, status robe i oblike distribucije) već takođe i same (umetničke) institucije zajedno sa njihovom ideološko-reprezentacijskom funkcijom. Konceptualna umetnost je, kako je to formulisao Benjamin Buhloh, uvela jedan “nov legalistički jezik i administrativni stil materijalnog prezentovanja” kao suprotnost tradicionalnim oblicima pojavljivanja i (društvenoj) funkciji umetnosti.

Projekt konceptualne umetnosti je, šire gledajući, bio formulisan kao taktička zamena umetničkog proizvoda (namenjenog prodaji na tržištu) kritičkim umetničkim stavom (kojim se ne može lako manipulisati na tržištu objekata). Ta zamena “predmeta” “idejom” ponekad je otvoreno (i naivno) shvatana kao odlučujući taktički potez koji se opire logici tržišne ekonomije u umetnosti, pa je čak na neki način i prevazilazi. Međutim, iz perspektive savremenih ekonomskih i kulturnih pozicija jasno se vidi da je ovaj emancipatorski pokušaj pre doprineo formalnoj radikalizaciji umetnosti nego stvarnoj promeni njene društvene funkcije. On je zapravo rezultirao praktikovanjem “metoda” samorefleksivnosti i samoreferencijalnosti unutar izolovanog disciplinarnog polja umetnosti. Drugim rečima, zamena “predmeta” “idejom” je ostala inherentna diskursu “institucije umetnosti” i otvorila je mogućnost jedne udobne pozicije umetničke kritike, primerene logici post-fordističke (re)produkcije i onoga što se naziva

“kognitivnim kapitalizmom”.Kulturna klima mreže studentskih centara osnovanih širom

Jugoslavije (delimično i kao posledica protesta ’68) može se opisati kao levičarska kritika zvanične kulture jugoslovenske socijalističke države. Zvanična kulturna politika sledila je ideju samoupravljanja kao jedinstvenog modela jugoslovenskog socijalizma što je rezultiralo u nečemu što bi se moglo okarakterisati kao koncepcija “relativne autonomije umetnosti” ili, uopšteno, kao modernističko-progresivistička tendencija koja je u diskusijama često nazivana i “socijalističkim modernizmom”. Dok su Jugoslaviju tokom sedamdesetih godina karakterisale promene u pravcu liberalizacije društva,

“nove umetničke prakse”, razvijane u okrilju novih liberalnih institucija, kao što je na primer Studentski kulturni centar u Beogradu, bile su pod uticajem zapadne, neo-marksističke, post-šezdesetosmaške kritike. Ta kritika je najčešće bila usmerena ka politički pasiviziranoj (u smislu održavanja status quo-a) birokratiji jugoslovenske države i javljanju nove klase “crvene buržoazije”.1

Izbor artefakata i dokumenata u delu izložbe “Slučaj SKC-a 1970-ih godina” upućuje na ideološku putanju i političko pozicioniranje tzv. novih umetničkih praksi u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Ta putanja otkriva simptomatične razlike između originalnog konteksta produkcije i savremenog trenutka u kojem ove prakse često figurišu kao artefakti “estetizovane politike” post-komunizma u zapadnim umetničkim institucijama. Unutar preovlađujuće post-socijalističke konstelacije, kritika može biti shvaćena samo kao disidentstvo, kao što i, shodno tome,

“kritička umetnost” kreirana u okrilju socijalističke države može

01 Pritom, treba imati u vidu da je zvanična ideologija SFRJ, još od 1950-ih godina kao jednu od svojih osnovnih crta razvila kritiku birokratizacije i stvaranja nove rukovodeće “tehno-menadžerske klase”, a i da je samo samoupravljanje legitimisano kao način da se prekinu takve tendencije i da fabrike stvarno pripadnu radnicima.

istraživačka beleška:Jelena Vesić

“Nova umetnička praksa” u bivšoj Jugoslaviji: Od levičarske kritike birokratije do postkomunističkog

artefakta u neoliberalnoj instituciji umetnosti

Iz perspektive

savremenih

ekonomskih i

kulturnih pozicija

jasno se vidi da je

ovaj emancipatorski

pokušaj pre

doprineo formalnoj

radikalizaciji

umetnosti nego

stvarnoj promeni

njene društvene

funkcije. On je

zapravo rezultirao

praktikovanjem

“metoda”

samorefleksivnosti i

samoreferencijalnosti

unutar izolovanog

disciplinarnog polja

umetnosti. Drugim

rečima, zamena

“predmeta” “idejom”

je ostala inherentna

diskursu “institucije

umetnosti” i otvorila

je mogućnost jedne

udobne pozicije

umetničke kritike,

primerene logici

post-fordističke

(re)produkcije i

onoga što se naziva

“kognitivnim

kapitalizmom”

Političke prakse (post)jugoslovenske umetnosti:

RETROSPEKTIVA 01, Konferencija, 30. novembar 2009. godine, Muzej 25 maj. Predstavljanje projekta Dva vremena jednog zida: Slučaj

SKC-a 1970ih godina, Prelom kolektiv.

Political Practices of (Post)-Yugoslav Art:

RETROSPECTIVE 01 (a conference), 30 November 2009, Museum of 25 May.

Presenting the project Two Ages of a Wall: SKC - a Case Study from the 1970s,

Prelom collective.snimila / Photo: Milica

Vukelić

22 23‘New Artistic Practices’ in the Former Yugoslavia:

From the Leftist Critique of Socialist Bureaucracy to Post-Communist Artifacts in the Neo-Liberal Institution of Art

biti samo reprezentacija individualne pobune u totalitarnom društvu (što je često predstavljeno stereotipiziranim mršavim telom performera u mračnom andergraund umetničkom prostoru). Ideološka revizija kritike šezdesetosmaške generacije umetnika iz bivše Jugoslavije razvijala se paralelno s usponom paradigme o tzv. “istočnoevropskoj” umetnosti. Ta paradigma je postepeno građena kroz kulturne politike Soros centara za savremenu umetnost 1990-ih godina, preko velikih izložbi istočnoevropske umetnosti počekom ovog veka (kao što su Body and East, After the Wall, Aspects/Positions, itd.) do stvaranja novih kolekcija “kritičke umetnosti”, čiji je najupečatljiviji primer Erste Bank Collection. Ta paradigma, u kranjoj liniji, ukazuje na ultimativnu pobedu postmodernističkih kulturnih studija u interpretaciji politike umetnosti, suvereno zamenjujući političko pozicioniranje umetnosti kulturnim identitetom umetnika. How to theorize political practices in art? How to

bridge the gap between art or political theory and ongoing art and activist practices?These questions stem from the confrontation of

theoretical abstractions, explaining the relation of art and politics, which are usually completely detached from the actual practices and insufficiently elaborated concepts produced in the terrain of the very practice [of art, curating, art criticism, etc.]. This confrontation is either leading towards disciplinary enclosure in language and related epistemology [of both the theory and artistic practice] or to the reduction and utilization of the efficiency of art in political theory and philosophy [i.e. Rancière, Badiou…]. The answer, then, must be found in the mutual and active testing of concepts and contexts of theoretical and art production in order to find a common language for the actual discussion of politics of art.

conceptual art has introduced a “new legalistic language and administrative style of material presentation” as a contrast to the traditional forms of appearance and [social] function of art.

The project of Conceptual art on a wider level has been formulated as a tactical replacement of the marketable art product by a critical art attitude. This replacement of the

“object” with an “idea” is sometimes openly [and naively] perceived as a tactical operation, which confronts and even overcomes the logic of the market economy in art. Observed from the contemporary cultural and economic perspective, this emancipatory attempt contributed to the formal radicalization of art rather than to the real change of its social function. It resulted in practicing the “methods” of self-reflexivity and self-referentiality within the enclosed disciplinary field of art. In other words, the replacement of the “object” by the “idea” at the same time remained internal to the discourse of the

“institution of art” and created a well-situated self-position in the logic of the post-Fordist (re)production and what is referred to as “cognitive capitalism”.

The cultural climate around the network of Student Cultural Centers established all over Yugoslavia [as a consequence of the protests of ‘68] could be described as the leftist critique of the official culture of the Yugoslav Socialist state. The official cultural policy-making was following the idea of self-management as a unique principle of Yugoslav socialism, resulting in the concept of ‘relative autonomy of culture’ and, in general, a modernist-progressivist tendency, often discussed under the term of ‘socialist modernism’. While the 1970s in Yugoslavia are characterized by the sweeping changes in the direction of the liberalization of society, the ‘New artistic practices’ developed around new liberal institutions of the Student Centers were influenced by Western, neo-Marxist, post ‘68 political criticism. Their critique was mostly directed towards the politically passivized bureaucracy of the Yugoslav State and the emergence of a new class of ‘red bourgeoisie’.

The selection of artifacts and documents presented in this room points to the ideological trajectory and political positioning of ‘New artistic practices’ in the former Yugoslavia from their original context up to the present day, when they are generously marketed in Western art institutions as artifacts of ‘aestheticised politics’ of post-communism. Within the prevailing post-Socialist condition, this critique can be only dissidentry, and, consequently, ‘critical art’ created inside the Socialist state can only be the representation of an individual rebel in totalitarian society [stereotypically represented through the skinny body of the performer in the gloomy alternative (art) space]. The ideological re-framing of the critique of the post ’68 generation of artists from former Yugoslavia develops parallel with the paradigm of “Eastern European” art. That paradigm, meticulously built through the cultural politics of the SCCA network during the 90s via blockbuster exhibitions of EE art at the beginning of 21st century [such as Body and East, After the Wall, Aspects/Positions, etc] and leading all the way to the formation of examples like the Erste Bank collection, points to the ultimate victory of the postmodernist-cultural studies approach in the interpretation of the politics of art, sovereignly replacing the political position of art with the cultural identity of the artist.

researchers’ note:Jelena Vesić

The generic term

‘critical art’ is often

used nowadays

in order to define

a certain kind of

cultural production.

What does it really

mean? By using

the language of

contemporary art

criticism, one is

tempted to claim

both that every art is

critical, and every art

is political; but, the

basic questions still

remains open: what

kind of critique and

what kind of politics?

Therefore, the real

problem is about how

to (re-)define the art

of critique, and how

to make it effective

today

The generic term ‘critical art’ is often used nowadays in order to define a certain kind of cultural production. What does it really mean? By using the language of contemporary art criticism, one is tempted to claim both that every art is critical and every art is political; but the basic questions still remain open: what kind of critique and what kind of politics? Therefore, the real problem is about how to (re-)define the art of critique, and how to make it effective today.

Contemporary cultural production embraces critique as the vaunted value of contemporary art and this new tendency emerges parallel with the changes of the institutional field in contemporary post-welfare state capitalism. The neo-liberal institution of culture advocates a policy of transformation from the inside [of society, cultural, alternative or state institutions, etc.], which relies on the inclusion of the critique from the very beginning [and, consequently, its appropriation]. Such

dynamic constellation produces the so-called ‘institutionalization of critique’ – a topic that has been re-discussed in the past few years on various ‘institutional’ and

‘independent/self-organized’ levels. This new institutionalization is followed by the processes of ‘culturalization’ (of political relations), that is, the strategy of outsourcing political issues to the field of culture, a process especially visible on the European margins, in so-called transitional societies. The requests for a ‘critical intellectual production’ and ‘social engagement of art’ are already inscribed in the guidelines of the leading European art foundations.

The ‘New artistic practices’ of the 1960s and 70s at stake here, were, generally speaking, developed through the critique of capitalist conformism, the art market, welfare-state institutions, institutional bureaucracy and hierarchy. At the same time, they are directed against the bourgeois values of art in the sense of ‘a beautiful image in a rich interior’, but are also, in the sense of modernist formalism, self-contemplation and concept of autonomy of art, conceived through self-sufficiency, disciplinary enclosure, professional division of labor, etc. Those practices were consequently challenging not only the status of the art object [its material form, commodity status and forms of distribution], but also the [art] institutions themselves, together with their ideological-representative social function. As Benjamin Buchloh noted,

Prelom kolektiv, Dva vremena jednog zida: Slučaj SKC-a 1970ih godina, Muzej 25 maj / Prelom collective, Two Ages of a Wall: SKC - a Case Study from the 1970s, Museum of 25 May, snimila / photo: Milica Vukelić

24 25Increasing interest in organising, structuring and

documenting the art history of former Eastern Europe is in large part a domain of the artists who participate actively

in the re-distribution of the visible, sayable and thinkable, as Jacques Rancière would put his definition of political art.01 Although heterogeneous in formal proposals, what the below mentioned cases have in common is the visual structuring into forms of “innovative archives”. They not only represent a strategy of self-historicisation within what could be called

01 Jacques Rancière. The Politics of Aesthetics. The Distribution of the Sensible. London and New York: Continuum, 2004, p.63. The term

“authorless projects” for this very specific assembly of projects and exhibitions is used by Inke Arns, who curated the exhibition What is Modern Art? (A Group Show) at the Künstlerhaus Bethanien in 2006 and together with Walter Benjamin edited the catalogue What is Modern Art? Introductory Series to the Modern Art 2, Frankfurt am Main, Revolver, 2006.

an institutional critique of former Eastern Europe, but also contribute to the methods of artistic research and to the theoretical endeavours of imagining what, if at all, a new canon of European contemporary art might be.

The reasons for the forms of archives to occur from the late 1980s onward in the cases of Lia Perjovschi’s Contemporary Art Archive / Center for Art Analysis, Irwin’s East Art Map, Tamás St.Auby’s Portable Intelligence Increase Museum, and authorless projects originating from South-Eastern Europe, most specifically the project Museum of American Art in Berlin, are diverse. Their practices have not only to do with the material found while researching through various personal and official archives. They create a visual typology, offer material for further and necessary art historic research and at the same time experiment with the registers of presenting the documentation, found and archival material. They are co-producers of the discourse which is very present in contemporary art today.02 Their research takes the form of an artwork, an exhibition format or a critically acclaimed and relevant art theoretical and art historical opus. In their presentations, they are becoming museum-like structures as well as self-institutionalised agencies, with all the accompanying knowledge produced, assembled and transmitted. What these artists have in common is thus an adaptation of the profession of an archivist, art historian or (museum) curator.

The interest and tolerance of the official art apparatchik in socialist and communist regimes for experimental art production varied from country to country, thus affecting the respective scenes to develop in different directions. The information, documentation and other printed matter circulated among the groups of like-minded critics, writers and artists, and was rarely accessed by official art institutions. The artists and directors of experimental art venues kept collecting and piling the documentation within their personal and spatial capabilities. By the end of the 70s and throughout the 80s, the increasingly liberating atmosphere of what could be called “the attempts of early civil society in a socialist state” emerged hand in hand with underground creativity and thus also more insight into this documentation was enabled, and effective intra-generational links were formed.

Boris Groys in his numerous writings describes the mechanisms of collections of art, museums or archives in former Eastern Europe. The art in former Eastern Europe was created in an ideological context and not within the logic of collection, as was and still is the case in the former West.03 Instead of getting incorporated into the Western collections, the artists of former Eastern Europe, Groys concludes, created imaginary or alternative “collections-installations”, histories and narrations that fill the entirety of museum spaces. In 2006 Zdenka Badovinac curated an exhibition at the Moderna Galerija in Ljubljana that dealt with the artistic-archiving strategies in former Eastern Europe called Interrupted Histories. In the catalogue text she wrote that “because the local institutions that should have been systematizing neo-avant-garde

02 See Dieter Roelstraete, “The Way of the Shovel: On the Archaeological Imaginary in Art“, in: e-flux journal #4, 03/2009, http://e-flux.com/journal/view/51

03 Cf. Boris Groys, Logik der Sammlung. Das Ende des musealen Zeitalters, München: Carl Hanser, 1997.

innovative forms of archives – exhibitions, events, books & museumsNataša Petrešin-Bachelez

art and its tradition either did not exist or were disdainful of such art, the artists themselves were forced to be their own art historians and archivists, a situation that still exists in some places today. Such self-historicisation includes the collecting and archiving of documents, whether of one’s own art actions, or, in certain spaces, of broader movements, ones that were usually marginalized by local politics and invisible in the international art context”.04 In a more recent text, Ilya Kabakov explains this artistic strategy of self-historicisation with the term self-description: “…the author would imitate, re-create that very same ‘outside’ perspective of which he was deprived in actual reality. He became simultaneously an author and an observer. Deprived of a genuine viewer, critic, or historian, the author unwittingly became them himself, trying

04 Zdenka Badovinac, “Interrupted Histories”, in: Badovinac et al. (eds.), Prekinjene zgodovine / Interrupted Histories. Ljubljana: Museum of Modern Art, 2006, not paginated.

to guess what his works meant ‘objectively’. He attempted to ‘imagine’ that very ‘History’ in which he was functioning and which was ‘looking’ at him. Obviously, this ‘History’ existed only in his imagination and had its own image for each artist…”05 Similarly, Victor Tupitsyn in his most recent book The Museological Unconscious. Communal (Post)Modernism in Russia06 observes how art historians, along with critics and artists, compensated the neglecting of the neo-avant-garde production with a certain

“museification” of their inner worlds and collective subjectivity. In the case of the Slovenian group Irwin, the strategy was

05 Ilya Kabakov, “Foreword”, in: Laura Hoptman and Tomáš Pospiszyl (eds.), Primary Documents. A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2002, p. 8.

06 Victor Tupitsyn, The Museological Unconscious. Communal (Post)Modernism in Russia, Cambridge (MA), The MIT Press, 2009.

Researches take form of an artwork, an exhibition format or a critically acclaimed

and relevant art theoretical and art historical opus. In their presentations, they are

becoming museum-like structures as well as self-institutionalised agencies, with

all the accompanying knowledge produced, assembled and transmitted. What these

artists have in common is thus an adaptation of the profession of an archivist, art

historian or (museum) curator

Logo MoAA / The logo of MoAA.

Zbirka: Novo američko slikartsvo / Collection: The New American Painting.

2726

not explicitly critical, but existed in the form of a constructive approach or a corrective. As Miran Mohar of the Irwin group says when referring to the institutional critique in the West,

“how can you criticize something which you actually don’t have?”07 The main motto of Irwin in the 90s was “construction of one’s own context”, where the group functioned both as the observer and the object of observation. This is the basis from which we can think about the strategy of self-historicisation, the artistic strategy which can furthermore be seen as one of the characteristics for an Eastern European institutional critique.08

The East Art Map, an ongoing project that was started in 2002, gave form to a book published in 2006 and several exhibitions. In 2002 Irwin invited 23 curators, critics, and art historians from Central and Eastern Europe to select 10 artists from their respective local context that they considered to be the most crucial for the development of contemporary art in Eastern Europe. “The history of art is a history of friendship,” Irwin claims and continues, “(i)n Eastern Europe there exists as a rule no transparent structures in which those events, artifacts, and artists that are significant to the history of art have been organized into a referential system accepted and respected outside the borders of a particular country. Instead, we encounter systems that are closed within national borders, whole series of stories and legends

07 Private interview with Miran Mohar, 2006, unpublished.

08 Cf. Nataša Petrešin, “Self-historicisation and self-institutionalisation as strategies of the institutional critique in the Eastern Europe”, in: Marina Gržinić, Alenka Domjan (eds.), Conceptual Artists and the Power of their Art Works for the Present, Celje: Center for Contemporary Arts, 2007.

about art and artists who were opposed to this official art world.”09 Understanding history as the ultimate context, Irwin decided to “democratize” its construction. Following the official selection of the invited professionals, Irwin established an online portal, where anyone who is interested can add proposals or suggest substitutions within the established East Art Map. The invitation to do so sounds even emotional: “History is not given, please help construct it!” This portal is now an archive-in-progress for forthcoming proposals and discussions about the compiled documentation.

The exhibitions that belong to the East Art Map project offer installations where one is able to browse through an archive of links, digitised images and a transparent system of selections done by the invited professionals. These installations have the status of artworks, so as it is, in its ultimate reading, the publication itself.

Ever since her performances in her flat throughout the 80s in Bucharest, during one of the most repressive systems in Europe, Lia Perjovschi’s activities have been creating a space of resistance. From body art she switched to research of the body of international art, says Dan Perjovschi about the change in her practice. Her curiosity and desire to understand, recuperate, discuss, share and coach found its way to a general audience. Her installations took on the form of open spaces, discussion areas, reading rooms, waiting rooms, meeting rooms. Books, slides, photocopies, files, postcards, printed matter about international as well as Romanian contemporary art started to be organised

09 Irwin, “General Introduction”, in: Irwin (ed.), East Art Map, London, Afterall Books, 2006, p.11.

and assembled in logical order. Lia also produced exhaustive drawings and texts on the basis of acquiring all the information about the Western history of contemporary art, calling them Subjective Art History. In the early 90s Lia and Dan founded the Contemporary Art Archive in their studio, a collection of issues, publications and reproductions. By the end of the 90s the CAA became a valuable database for all alternative art initiatives, a self-supporting archive created outside the network of state funds. Besides issuing, on the basis of the archive material, cheaply designed publications meant to inform and classify various art movements and tendencies, the CAA organized several exhibitions paired with open discussions or series of lectures. In 2003 the CAA modified its function and ever since has been operating under the title Center for Art Analysis. Lia describes herself as a “Detective in Art”, reading, copying, cutting and remixing texts, concepts and images. As Dan Perjovschi says, “her Museum in files is not stuck on the shelves and is never closed... The knowledge of international art practice that she brought together helped to develop local criticism.” Lia emphasizes that the most important activity that an archive can establish is: sharing and teaching. While the sharing of books, ideas and information was practically forbidden during the communist regime, she understands that a shared idea gives birth to another idea and that sharing is an essential survival strategy.

Portable Intelligence Increase Museum, which bears the subtitle Pop Art, Conceptual Art and Actionism in Hungary during the 60s, comprises the period between 1956 and 1976.10 While having in mind Duchamp’s self-representational boîte-en-valise, we can observe this easily mountable structure with exhibited collection of multiples, multimedia and video works and documents by some 70 artists as Duchamp’s echo. The project was established in 2003 by Tamás St.Auby and other members of NETRAF, an association of artists whose name stands for Neo-Socialist Realist International Parallel Union of Telecommunications’ Global Contra-Art-History-Falsifiers Front. This contra-art-historical project was conceived with the intention to expose the flaws in official accounts of Hungarian art of the 1960s and 70s, to “fill the neglected gap”, as St.Auby writes himself, precisely noting the important subversive practices of the neo-avant-garde being left out from the seminal publication The Primary Documents, or an exhibition like Aspects and Positions. In a confrontational tone St.Auby states that the art produced after the 50s in Hungary that developed in synchrony with international trends and with other suppressed experiments within former Eastern Europe, was not properly revealed to the public. He writes that “it might have been covered had Hungarian art historians and curators taken upon themselves the task of informing the unaware public about domestic and foreign developments before and after the 1989 coup. The era’s Hungarian artistic developments aren’t worked up, appreciated, archived or popularized. As a consequence, the artistic common knowledge is truncated and mutilated.” Similar to Irwin’s position, this is an artistic intervention into the constituting history of contemporary art that reacts with a constructive proposal and a self-institutionalised position.

The last case study is a permanent exhibition from the series of authorless projects originating from South-Eastern Europe, called Museum of American Art in Berlin. The Museum of American Art is an educational institution dedicated to assembling, preserving and exhibiting memories of the exhibitions of modern American art in Europe during the 50s and early 60s. It opened in Berlin in 2004 at Frankfurter Allee 91. This museum is an offspring of the Museum of Modern Art which itself is an exhibit in the Museum of American Art. A small-sized Museum in a 2:2m scale encapsulates European modern art from the first half of the 20th century as it was defined and promoted by Alfred Baar Jr, the founding director of the MoMA in New York. His subjective interpretation of Modern Art, based on international movements, was established in New York in the mid-1930s and brought to Europe after the war. The subject of the exhibition

10 In Tamás St.Auby’s view these are the years that define the notion of “the 60s” in art.

in the space next to the small museum model, called Americans, is a series of exhibitions of American art curated by Dorothy Miller that travelled through major European cities between 1953 and 1959. These MoMa exhibitions eventually led to the dominance of American artists on the global scale. What is specific about this project is that the works exhibited are copies of original invaluable paintings by Cubist masters and abstract expressionists, but even go a step beyond by painting pages of the catalogues and photographs of the exhibitions views. One Walter Benjamin, who has supported and followed these projects over the years, noted in his interview with Beti Žerovc, that “the real change is not going to happen through shock and scandal any more. It is going to take place unnoticed, getting under your skin while you are even not aware of it”. He is referring to these projects that are, as he calls them, Meta-Kunst (meta-art). This term denotes the situation in which art history has become an internal subject matter of those projects and thus a position outside of Art History is possible. The meta-position of these projects recontextualises canonical Western art history, but it does not, as Walter Benjamin says, “forget its narrative. We have a re-contextualisation rather than a deconstruction of the historical narrative. While deconstructing is in some way closer to forgetting, re-contextualising might come closer to remembering. Copies are memories”,11 he ends, thus offering a whole new understanding of the ontology of a copy, in relation to the archival documentation of photographs, digitized material and films.

What do these innovative forms of archives activate? They have a multiple ontological status: they can be qualified as a practice of exhibition making (as a permanent exhibition or an exhibition in progress) or as a work of art that takes the form of an archive in various media. At the same time they provide a methodological attempt and publish results of a social scientific research. Presenting or labelling them as museums, publications, online archive, works of art are ways of proposing a process of institutionalisation as a format and critique, and a challenge to both the canon of the Western history of contemporary art and the history of contemporary art in former Eastern Europe that is being written as we speak. The position towards the Western canon for each of the cases is different each time, which also reflects the geopolitical reality from which they have been conceived12: Lia Perjovschi understands the former West as a never-ending source of information that was previously not available and as a contextualisation of contemporary art production in Romania; Tamás St.Auby’s position is one of reproach towards the local art history; Irwin’s a reproach of Western art history, and is proving how to be constructive at the same time; and in the case of the Museum of American Art the whole Western canon is a metonymy towards which this project offers a changed perspective.

11 Beti Žerovc, “My Dear, This Is Not What It Seems To Be. An Interview with Walter Benjamin”, in: Inke Arns, Walter Benjamin (eds.), What is Modern Art? Introductory Series to the Modern Art 2, Frankfurt am Main, Revolver, 2006, p. 34.

12 We encounter a most recent and very interesting analogy with the attempt to reflect a museum-like structure in Walid Raad’s exhibition A History of Modern and Contemporary Arab Art _ Part I _ Chapter 1: Beirut 1992-2005 at the Gallery Sfeir-Semler in Beyrouth in 2008. On the one hand, his project aims to identify and unpack the ideological, economic, and political dimensions of this recent fascination with visual art in the Arab world. On the other hand, and proceeding from the writings of Lebanese philosopher and artist Jalal Toufic and his concept of “the withdrawal of tradition past a surpassing disaster,” Raad intends to examine whether and how culture and tradition in the Arab world may have been affected, materially and immaterially, by the various wars that have been waged there by native and external powers. One of the works is a small-scale museum model with a miniaturised retrospective of the works of The Atlas Group.

NETRAF (Neo-Socialist. Realist. International

Parallel Union of Telecommunication’s

Global Counter-Arthist.-ory Falsifiers Front): Portable

Intelligence Increase Museum (PI²M) – Pop

Art, Conceptual Art and Actionism in Hungary during the 60s (1956-

1976); Izložba / Exhibition Eintritt Frei, BAWAG

Foundation, Vienna, 2004. snimio / Photo: Reinhard Mayr

One Walter Benjamin,

who has supported

and followed these

projects over the

years, calls them

Meta-Kunst (meta-

art). This term

denotes the situation

in which art history

has become an

internal subject

matter of those

projects and thus a

position outside of

Art History is possible.

The meta-position

of these projects

recontextualises

canonical Western

art history, but

it does not, as

Walter Benjamin

says, “forget its

narrative. We have a

re-contextualisation

rather than a

deconstruction of the

historical narrative.

While deconstructing

is in some way

closer to forgetting,

re-contextualising

might come closer to

remembering. Copies

are memories”

28 29

inovativne forme arhiva– izložbe, događaji, knjige i muzejiNataša Petrešin-Bachelez

Sve veće zanimanje za organizaciju, strukturiranje i dokumentiranje povijesti umjetnosti bivše Istočne Evrope velikim je dijelom domena umjetnika koji aktivno

sudjeluju u redistribuciji vidljivoga, izrecivoga i mislivoga, kako već glasi definicija umjetnosti Jacquesa Rancièrea.01 Premda heterogenih formalnih prijedloga, niže spomenutim slučajevima zajedničko je vizualno strukturiranje u forme

“inovativnih arhiva”. Oni ne samo da predstavljaju strategiju autohistorizacije unutar onoga što bi se moglo nazvati institucijskom kritikom bivše Istočne Evrope nego i pridonose metodama umjetničkog istraživanja i teorijskog truda zamišljanja što bi, ako išta, mogao biti nov kanon evropske suvremene umjetnosti.

Raznoliki su razlozi za nastanak arhivskih formi od kraja 1980-ih nadalje u slučajevima Arhiva suvremene umjetnosti / Centra za analizu umjetnosti Lie Perjovschi, Irwinove East Art Map, Prijenosnog muzeja povećanja inteligencije Tamása St. Aubyja, i projekata bez autora nastalih u Jugoistočnoj Evropi,02 a najodređenije projekta Muzej američke umjetnosti u Berlinu. Njihova praksa ne odnosi se samo na materijal pronađen u istraživanju raznih osobnih i službenih arhiva. Oni stvaraju vizualnu topologiju, nude materijal za daljnje, nužno kunsthistoričarsko istraživanje, a istovremeno i za eksperimentiranje s registrima predstavljanja dokumentacije, pronađenog i arhivskog materijala. Oni su sutvorci diskursa koji

01 Jacques Rancière. The Politics of Aesthetics. The Distribution of the Sensible. London i New York: Continuum, 2004, str. 63.

02 Pojmom “umjetnost bez autora” taj, vrlo specifičan sklop projekata i izložaba opisuje Inke Arns, koja je bila kustos izložbe Što je moderna umjetnost? u Künstlerahus Bethanien 2006. i zajedno s Walterom Benjaminom uredila katalog What is Modern Art? Introductory Series to the Modern Art 2, Franfurt am Main, Revolver, 2006.

je itekako prisutan u suvremenoj umjetnosti danas.03 Njihovo istraživanje poprima oblik umjetničkog djela, u formatu izložbe ili kritički prihvaćenog rada na području teorije umjetnosti i povijesti umjetnosti. U svojim prezentacijama, oni postaju strukture nalik na muzej, kao i autoinstitucionalizirana djelovanja, sa svim pratećim znanjem koje se pritom stvara, prikuplja i prenosi. Dakle, tim umjetnicima zajednička je adaptacija profesije arhivista, povjesničara umjetnosti ili (muzejskog) kustosa.

Zanimanje i tolerancija aparatčika za umjetnost u socijalističkim i komunističkim režimima prema stvaranju eksperimentalne umjetnosti varirali su od zemlje do zemlje te tako utjecali na razvoj umjetničkih scena u različitim smjerovima. Informacije, dokumentacija i drugi tiskani materijal cirkulirao je među grupama kritičara istomišljenika, pisaca i umjetnika, te je rijetko dosezao službene umjetničke institucije. Umjetnici i upravitelji eksperimentalnih poprišta umjetnosti i dalje su prikupljali i gomilali dokumentaciju, u okviru svojih osobnih i prostornih mogućnosti. Od kraja 70-ih i cijelih 80-ih, sve slobodnija atmosfera onoga što bi se moglo nazvati “iskoracima ranoga civilnog društva u socijalističkoj državi” nastajala je ruku pod ruku s podzemnim aktivnostima te tako omogućila bolji uvid u tu dokumentaciju, a nastale su i afektivne međugeneracijske veze.

Boris Groys u svojim brojnim tekstovima opisuje mehanizme kolekcioniranja umjetnosti, muzeja ili arhiva u bivšoj Istočnoj Evropi. Umjetnost u bivšoj Istočnoj Evropi stvarala se u ideološkom kontekstu, a ne prema logici kolekcioniranja, kao što je bio, a još uvijek i jest, slučaj na bivšem Zapadu.04 Umjesto da se uključe u zapadne zbirke,

03 Vidi Dieter Roelstraete, “The Way of the Shovel: On the Archaeological Imaginary in Art”, u: e-flux journal #4, 03/2009, http://e-flux.com/journal/view/51

04 Cf. Boris Groys, Logik der Sammlung. Das Ende des musealen Zeitalters, München: Carl Hanser, 1997.

umjetnici iz bivše Istočne Evrope, zaključuje Groys, stvorili su alternativne “zbirke-instalacije”, povijesti i naracije koje ispunjavaju cjelinu muzejskih prostora. Godine 2006. Zdenka Badovinac bila je kustos izložbe u Modernoj galeriji u Ljubljani, koja je tematizirala strategije arhiviranja umjetnosti u bivšoj Istočnoj Evropi, pod nazivom Prekinute povijesti. U kataloškom tekstu napisala je da “jer lokalne institucije koje bi trebale sistematizirati neoavangardnu umjetnost i njenu tradiciju ili nisu postojale ili su takvu umjetnost prezirale, sami umjetnici bili su prisiljeni biti vlastiti povjesničari i arhivisti umjetnosti, a takva situacija ponegdje i dalje postoji. Takva autohistorizacija uključuje kolekcioniranje i arhiviranje dokumenata, bilo vlastitih umjetničkih akcija ili pak, u nekim slučajevima, širih pokreta, koje su lokalni političari obično marginalizirali, a u kontekstu međunarodne umjetnosti bili su nevidljivi”.05 Ilya Kabakov u novijem tekstu objašnjava tu umjetničku strategiju autohistorizacije pojmom samoopisa: “autor bi oponašao, re-kreirao onu istu ‘vanjsku’ perspektivu koje je u stvarnosti bio lišen. Istovremeno je postajao autor i promatrač. Lišen istinskog gledatelja, kritičara i povjesničara umjetnosti, autor se nesvjesno pretvarao u njih, pokušavajući nagađati što njegov rad ‘objektivno’ znači. Pokušavao je ‘zamisliti’ upravo tu ‘povijest’ u kojoj je djelovao i koja ga je ‘gledala’. Očito, ta

‘povijest’ postojala je samo u njegovoj mašti i svaki autor imao je vlastitu sliku te povijesti...” 06 Slično tome, Victor Tupitsyn u svom novom djelu The Museological Unconscious. Communal (Post)Modernism in Russia 07 napominje kako su povjesničari umjetnosti, kao i kritičari i umjetnici, nadoknađivali zanemarivanje neoavangardne proizvodnje svojevrsnom

“muzeifikacijom” svojih unutarnjih svjetova i kolektivnog subjektiviteta.

U slučaju slovenske grupe Irwin strategija nije bila izričito kritička, ali je postojala u obliku konstruktivnog pristupa ili korektiva. Kako kaže Miran Mohar iz grupe Irwin, misleći na institucijsku kritiku na Zapadu: “kako možete kritizirati nešto što zapravo nemate?”08 Glavni motto Irwina 90-ih bio je

“konstrukcija vlastitog konteksta”, pri čemu je grupa djelovala istovremeno i kao promatrač i kao predmet promatranja. To je osnova s koje možemo promišljati strategiju autohistorizacije,

05 Zdenka Badovinac, “Interrupted Histories”, u: Badovinac i drugi (ur.), Prekinjene zgodovine / Interrupted Histories. Ljubljana: Museum of Modern Art, 2006, nije paginirano.

06 Ilya Kabakov, “Foreword”, u: Laura Hoptman i Tomáš Pospiszyl (ur.), Primary Documents. A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2002, str. 8.

07 Victor Tupitsyn, The Museological Unconscious. Communal (Post)Modernism in Russia, Cambridge (MA), The MIT Press, 2009.

08 Privatni razgovor s Miranom Moharom, 2006, neobjavljeno.

umjetničke strategije koju se štoviše može vidjeti kao jedno od obilježja istočnoevropske institucijske kritike.09

East Art Map, trajni projekt koji je započeo 2002, uobličio je knjigu objavljenu 2006, uz nekoliko izložaba. Irwin je 2002. pozvao 23 kustosa, kritičara i povjesničara umjetnosti iz Srednje i Istočne Evrope, kako bi odabrao 10 umjetnika iz njihovih lokalnih konteksta koje je smatrao presudnima za razvoj suvremene umjetnosti u Istočnoj Evropi. “Povijest umjetnosti je povijest prijateljstva”, i nastavlja: “U Istočnoj Evropi u pravilu nema transparentnih struktura kojima su ti događaji, artefakti i umjetnici koji su važni za povijest umjetnosti organizirani u referentni sustav koji bi bio prihvaćen i poštovan izvan granica određene zemlje. Umjesto toga nailazimo na sustave koji su zatvoreni unutar nacionalnih granica, na cijele nizove priča i legendi o umjetnosti i umjetnicima koji su se suprotstavljali tom službenom svijetu umjetnosti”,10 tvrde Irwini. Razumijevajući povijest kao vrhovni kontekst, Irwini su odlučili “demokratizirati” njezino konstruiranje. Nakon službene selekcijue pozvanih profesionalaca, osnovali su online portal na kojemu svi zainteresirani mogu dodavati prijedloge ili sugerirati zamjene u postavljenoj East Art Map. Poziv da se to učini čak zvuči emocionalno: “Povijest nije zadana, molimo vas da je pomognete konstruirati!” Taj portal sada je archive-in-progress za nadolazeće prijedloge i rasprave o prikupljenoj dokumentaciji.

Izložbe koje pripadaju projektu East Art Map nude instalacije, gdje se može pregledavati arhiva poveznica, digitaliziranih slika i transparentan sustav selekcija koje su načinili pozvani profesionalci. Te instalacije imaju status umjetničkih djela, kao što je to u konačnom čitanju i sama publikacija.

Još od performancea u njezinu bukureštanskom stanu tijekom 80-ih, u jednom od najrepresivnijih sustava u Evropi, aktivnosti Lie Perjovschi stvarale su prostor otpora. S body arta prešla je na istraživanje korpusa internacionalne umjetnosti, govori Dan Perjovschi o promjeni njene prakse. Njena radoznalost i želja da razumije, ispravlja, raspravlja, dijeli i poučava našla je put do publike. Instalacije su poprimile oblik otvorenih prostora, područja za raspravu, čitaonica, čekaonica, prostorija za sastanke. Knjige, dijapozitivi, fotokopije, dopisnice, te publikacije o međunarodnoj i rumunjskoj suvremenoj umjetnosti počela je organizirati i slagati logičnim redom. Lia je stvarala brojne crteže i tekstove na osnovi svih informacija koje je prikupila o zapadnoj povijesti suvremene umjetnosti, i nazvala ih Subjektivna povijest umjetnosti. Početkom 90-ih Lia i Dan u svom stanu utemeljili su Arhivu suvremene umjetnosti (CAA), zbirku izdanja, publikacija i reprodukcija. Krajem 90-ih CAA je postala vrijedna baza podataka o svim inicijativama alternativne umjetnosti, samoodržavajuća arhiva stvorena izvan mreže državnih fondova. Osim objavljivanja, na temelju arhivske građe, jeftino dizajniranih publikacija namijenjenih informiranju i klasificiranju ranih umjetničkih pokreta i tendencija, CAA je organizirala nekoliko izložaba popraćenih otvorenim raspravama ili nizom predavanja. Godine 2003. CAA je promijenila funkciju i otad djeluje pod naslovom Centar za analizu umjetnosti. Lia sebe opisuje kao “detektivku na području umjetnosti”, koja čita, kopira, izrezuje i miješa tekstove, pojmove i slike. Kako kaže Dan Perjovschi: “njen Muzej dosjea nije fiksiran na policama i nikad nije dovršen... Znanje o međunarodnoj umjetničkoj praksi koje je prikupila pomoglo je pokrenuti lokalnu kritiku.” Lia ističe najvažniju aktivnost koju arhiva može uspostaviti: dijeljenje i predavanje. Iako je u vrijeme komunističkog režima dijeljenje knjiga, ideja i informacija bilo praktički zabranjeno, ona shvaća da zajednička ideja potiče nastanak nove ideje i da je dijeljenje bitna strategija opstanka.

Prijenosni muzej povećanja inteligencije, s podnaslovom

09 Cf. Nataša Petrešin, “Self-historicisation and self-institutionalisation as strategies of the institutional critique in the Eastern Europe«, Marina Gržinić, Alenka Domjan (ur.), Conceptual Artists and the Power of their Art Works for the Present, Celje: Center for contemporary arts, 2007.

10 Irwin, »General Introduction«, u: Irwin (ur.), East Art Map, London, Afterall Books, 2006, str. 11.

Irwin: Karta istočnoevropskog

modernizma /Map of Eastern Modernism,

1990.

Istraživanje

poprima oblik

umjetničkog djela, u

formatu izložbe ili

rada na području

teorije i povijesti

umjetnosti. U svojim

prezentacijama,

oni postaju

strukture nalik na

muzej, kao i auto-

institucionalizirana

djelovanja, sa svim

pratećim znanjem

koje se pritom

stvara, prikuplja

i prenosi. Dakle,

tim umjetnicima

zajednička

je adaptacija

profesije arhivista,

povjesničara

umjetnosti ili

(muzejskog) kustosa

Autor bi oponašao,

re-kreirao onu istu

‘vanjsku’ perspektivu

koje je u stvarnosti

bio lišen. Istovremeno

je postajao autor

i promatrač.

Lišen istinskog

gledatelja, kritičara

i povjesničara

umjetnosti, autor se

nesvjesno pretvarao

u njih, pokušavajući

nagađati što njegov

rad ‘objektivno’

znači. Pokušavao

je ‘zamisliti’ upravo

tu ‘povijest’ u kojoj

je djelovao i koja ga

je ‘gledala’. Očito, ta

‘povijest’ postojala

je samo u njegovoj

mašti i svaki autor

imao je vlastitu sliku

te povijesti...

30 31

Pop Art, konceptualna umjetnost i akcionizam u Mađarskoj tijekom 60-ih obuhvaća razdoblje od 1956. do 1976.11 Imajući na umu Duchampovu autoreprezentacijsku boîte-en-valise, tu strukturu koju je lako postaviti, možemo promatrati – u izloženoj zbirci multipla, multimedijskih i videoradova i dokumenata o 70-ak umjetnika – kao Duchampov odjek. Taj projekt pokrenuo je 2003. Tamás St. Auby s drugim članovima NETRAF-a, asocijacije umjetnika čiji naziv znači

“fronta neosocijalističkorealističke internacionalne paralelne unije globalnotelekomunikacijskih protufalsifikatora povijesti umjetnosti”. Taj projekt protiv povijesti umjetnosti zamišljen je s nakanom da razotkrije greške u službenim prikazima mađarske umjetnosti 1960-ih i 70-ih, da “popuni zanemareni jaz”, kako piše sam St. Auby, precizno uočavajući da su važne subverzivne prakse neoavangarde izostavljene iz utjecajne publikacije The Primary Documents i s izložaba kao što je Aspects and Positions. Polemičkim tonom, St. Auby piše da umjetnost nastala nakon 50-ih u Mađarskoj, koja se razvijala sinkrono s međunarodnim trendovima i drugim potisnutim eksperimentima u bivšoj Istočnoj Evropi, nije odgovarajuće predstavljena javnosti. Piše da je “mogla biti predstavljena da su se mađarski povjesničari umjetnosti i kustosi prihvatili posla informiranja neobaviještene javnosti o domaćim i stranim procesima razvoja prije i poslije udara 1989. Procesi razvoja mađarske umjetnosti nisu obrađeni, vrednovani, arhivirani ni popularizirani. Posljedica toga je da je znanje o umjetnosti potkresano i osakaćeno.” Slično poziciji Irwina, to je umjetnička intervencija u konstitutivnu povijest suvremene umjetnosti koja reagira konstruktivnim prijedlogom i pozicijom autoinstitucionalizacije.

Posljednji slučaj je trajna izložba dijela niza projekata bez autora, nastalih u Jugoistočnoj Evropi, pod naslovom Muzej američke umjetnosti u Berlinu. Muzej američke umjetnosti je obrazovna ustanova posvećena slaganju, čuvanju i izlaganju sjećanja na izložbe moderne američke umjetnosti u Evropi

11 Prema gledištu Tamása St. Aubyja, te godine definiraju pojam “60-ih” u umjetnosti.

50-ih i početkom 60-ih. Otvorena je 2004. u Berlinu, na adresi Frankfurter Allee 91. Taj muzej potomak je Muzeja moderne umjetnosti, koji je pak izložak Muzeja američke umjetnosti. Umanjeni muzej, unutar 2:2 m obuhvaća evropsku modernu umjetnost prve polovice dvadesetog stoljeća kako ju je definirao i zastupao Alfred Baar Jr, utemeljitelj i prvi direktor MoMA-e u New Yorku. Njegova subjektivna interpretacija moderne umjetnosti, zasnovana na međunarodnim pokretima, uspostavljena je sredinom 30-ih u New Yorku, a nakon rata prenesena je u Evropu. Tema izložbe u prostoru uz malenu maketu muzeja, pod naslovom Americans, niz je izložaba američke umjetnosti čiji je kustos bila Dorothy Miller, koja je putovala glavnim evropskim gradovima između 1953. i 1959. Te izložbe u MoMA-i na kraju su dovele do prevlasti američkih umjetnika u globalnim razmjerima. Taj projekt specifičan je po tome što su izloženi radovi kopije neprocjenjivih originalnih slika kubističkih majstora i apstraktnih ekspresionista, ali i po tome što je otišao korak dalje oslikavajući stranice kataloga i fotografija s izložbe. Stanoviti Walter Benjamin, koji je podupirao i pratio te projekte, u intervjuu s Beti Žerovc napomenuo je: “prava promjena više se neće dogoditi kao šok i skandal. Dogodit će se neprimjetno, zaći će vam pod kožu a da toga nećete biti ni svjesni.” On misli na projekte koji su kako ih on naziva, Meta-Kunst (metaumjetnost). Taj izraz označava situaciju u kojoj je povijest umjetnosti postala unutarnjom temom tih projekata i stoga je moguća pozicija izvan povijesti umjetnosti. Metapozicija tih projekta rekontekstualizira kanonsku povijest zapadne umjetnosti, ali kako kaže Walter Benjamin, “ne zaboravlja svoju priču. Imamo rekontekstualizaciju, a ne dekonstrukciju povijesne priče. Dok je dekonstruiranje na neki način bliže zaboravljanju, rekontekstualiziranje je možda bliže sjećanju. Kopije su sjećanja”,12 završava on, nudeći tako posve novo razumijevanje ontologije kopije, u odnosu prema arhivskoj dokumentaciji fotografija, digitaliziranih materijala i filmova.

Što aktiviraju te inovativne forme arhiva? Imaju višestruki ontološki status: može ih se kvalificirati kao praksu stvaranja izložaba (kao trajne izložbe ili izložbe u radu) ili kao umjetničko djelo koje poprima oblik arhiva u raznim medijima. One istovremeno nude i metodološki pokušaj i objavljuju rezultat društvenog znanstvenog istraživanja. Predstavljena ili označena kao muzeji, publikacije ili online arhive, umjetnička djela su način da se predloži proces institucionalizacije kao format i kao kritika, te kao izazov i kanonu zapadne povijesti suvremene umjetnosti i povijesti suvremene umjetnosti u bivšoj Istočnoj Evropi, koja se upravo piše. Pozicija prema zapadnom kanonu drukčija je u svakom od tih slučajeva, što je i odraz geopolitičke stvarnosti u kojoj su zamišljeni:13 Lia Perjovschi shvaća bivši Zapad kao beskrajan izvor informacija koji prije nije bio dostupan i kao kontekstualizaciju suvremene umjetničke proizvodnje u Rumunjskoj; Tamás St. Auby nastupa sa stajališta zamjeranja lokalnoj povijesti umjetnosti; grupa Irwin osuđuje zapadnu povijest umjetnosti i pokazuje kako istovremeno biti konstruktivan; a u slučaju Muzeja američke umjetnosti, cijeli zapadni kanon je metonimija prema kojoj taj projekt nudi promijenjenu perspektivu.

12 Beti Žerovc, »My Dear,This Is Not What It Seems To Be. An Interview with Walter Benjamin«, u: Inke Arns, Walter Benjamin (ur.), What is Modern Art? Introductory Series to the Modern Art 2, Frankfurt am Main, Revolver, 2006, str. 34.

13 Najnoviju, vrlo zanimljivu analogiju s pokušajem odražavanja muzejske strukture nalazimo u izložbi Walida Raada A History of Modern and Contemporary Arab Art_Part I_Chapter 1: Beirut 1992-2005 u galeriji Sfeir-Semler u Beirutu 2008. S jedne strane, cilj njegova projekta je identificirati i razobličiti ideološke, ekonomske i političke dimenzije te nove fasciniranosti vizualnim umjetnostima u arapskom svijetu. S druge strane, polazeći od tekstova libanonskog filozofa i umjetnika Jalala Toufica i njegova pojma “odbacivanja tradicije na putu prema neumitnoj propasti”, Raad kani istražiti da li i kako kultura i tradicija u arapskom svijetu trpe posljedice, materijalne i nematerijalne, raznih ratova koje tu vode lokalne i vanjske sile. Jedan od radova je maketa muzeja u malenom omjeru, s minijaturiziranom retrospektivom radova The Atlas Group.

Stanoviti Walter

Benjamin, koji je

podupirao i pratio

te projekte, u

intervjuu s Beti

Žerovc napomenuo je:

“prava promjena više

se neće dogoditi kao

šok i skandal. Dogodit

će se neprimjetno,

zaći će vam pod kožu

a da toga nećete

biti ni svjesni.” On

misli na projekte

koji su kako ih on

naziva, Meta-Kunst

(metaumjetnost).

Taj izraz označava

situaciju u kojoj je

povijest umjetnosti

postala unutarnjom

temom tih projekata

i stoga je moguća

pozicija izvan

povijesti umjetnosti

In the history of unofficial art exhibitions in Moscow, two events have come to define the period between Stalin’s death and the breakup of the Soviet Union: Khrushchev’s

visit to 30 Years of MOSKh at the Manezh in December 1962 and the First Fall Outdoor Exhibition of Paintings in Beliaevo (also known as the “Bulldozer Show”) in 1974. Both exhibitions resulted in confrontations between unofficial artists and Soviet authorities, reinforcing the boundaries between official and unofficial art and further equating unofficial art with the struggle for visibility and a broader public.01 Focusing on these visible public conflicts, however, runs the risk of obscuring immediate artistic concerns with accounts of censorship and oppression, of framing unofficial artistic practice in terms of conformity and dissent and mapping it onto a familiar narrative of belated modernist progress. The emergence in the 1970s of albums, conceptualist object-poetry, and performances that addressed a small and select audience in private studios or suburban fields is evidence that at least some artists did not seek access to the wider Soviet public or official recognition of their activities in exhibitions. On the contrary, this conceptual turn constituted a reassessment of what it means to exhibit and experience artworks, at times explicitly thematizing recent exhibition history and rejecting both the exhibition as a convention and the notion of artwork that it presupposes. In particular, two forms of conceptualist practice – performance and collaborative artists’ archives – articulated these new positions regarding artworks and publics in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While they served as alternative exhibition spaces at a time when state-run museums and exhibition halls were inaccessible, they went well beyond this necessity and declared a shift in artistic priorities that has become one facet of the movement now known as Moscow Conceptualism.

Russian performance had always incited artistic collaboration and sought to narrow the distance between artists and audience. Unlike Futurist street spectacles or Meyerhold’s avant-garde theater, performance art in the 1970s limited itself to small audiences of friends and fellow artists.02 In 1976, a group of artists and poets that would soon be called Collective Actions began to stage outdoor actions loosely based on semi-private poetry readings. In actions such as Appearance (March 13, 1976) or Lieblich (April 2, 1976), small audiences were invited to gather in a field where an organizer would appear from the forest to hand out documentary certificates or an electric

01 On the Manezh Affair, see Yurii Gerchuk, “Krovoizliianie v MOSKh”, ili Khrushchev v Manezhe (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008) and Susan Emily Reid, Destalinization and the Remodernization of Soviet Art: The Search for a Contemporary Realism, 1953–1963 (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996). On the Bulldozer Show, see Laura Hoptman and Tomas Pospiszyl, eds., Primary Documents: A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s (New York: The Museum of Modern Art; Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2002), 65–77, and I. Alpatova, L. Talochkin, and N. Tamruchi, “Drugoe iskusstvo”, Moskva 1956–1988 (Moscow: Galart, 2005), 197–200.

02 Margarita Masterkova [Tupitsyn], “Performances in Moscow,” A-Ya: Unofficial Russian Art Review 4 (1982), 6.

invisible exhibitions: performance & the archive in moscow conceptualismYelena Kalinsky

Kolektivne akcije: Pojavljivanje, Ismailovsko polje, Moskva / Collective Actions: Appearance, Izmailovskoe Field, Moskva/Moscow. March 13, 1976. snimio / Photo: Georgy Kisewalter, Ljubaznošću/Courtesy: Andrei Monastyrski

buzzer would sound continuously beneath the snow.3 In the context of recent events and local institutional structures, this aesthetic was a radical repositioning of the traditional artistic encounter in the museum or exhibition hall. The actions were staged away from the city and its art establishment; viewers were invited personally, by word of mouth or distributed

03 Kollektivnye deistviia, Poezdki za gorod (Moscow: Ad Marginem, 1998). Documentary materials can be found online at http://letov.conceptualism.ru/KD-actions.html.

NETRAF (Neo-Socialist. Realist. International

Parallel Union of Telecommunication’s

Global Counter-Arthist.ory-Falsifiers Front): Portable

Intelligence Increase Museum (PI²M)

– Pop Art, Conceptual Art and Actionism in Hungary

during the 60s (1956-1976) – Presented at Dorottya Gallery, Budapest, 2003.

snimio / Photo: Tamás St.Auby

32 33

invitations; and success was gauged in conversation and discussions, never the specialized art press or scholarly establishment.

The key difference, however, was the de-emphasis of the object of display, a tactic that is cleverly foregrounded in another action, Pictures (February 11, 1979). Here, members of the audience were given envelopes inscribed with information related to the action and instructed to arrange them in a line on the ground. They then spent time perusing the “artworks” of the resulting “exhibition,” which stretched nearly 50 meters in the snow. In the course of the action, it became clear that the majority of the inscriptions on the envelopes were false and that in fact the key to the action had been the nearly imperceptible withdrawal of two participants from the field. As one viewer-participant later noted, the action had been staged as an elegant sleight-of-hand, meant to cast light on the illusion, the insufficiency of the ritual that was taking place. Despite the pleasant atmosphere, the familiar friends among the audience, and the amusing game with the envelopes, it all receded in light of the real action (the imperceptible disappearance).04

If Appearance and Lieblich had been a kind of Cagean “listening to silence,” then Pictures went a step further by stimulating perception at an unconscious level.05 The ritual structure of the action functioned to direct viewers’ attention and immerse them in a state of anticipation, as if in following instructions they would receive a payoff, the thing that they

had come to see. Andrei Monastyrski, one of the group’s founders, invokes the term “demonstrational field” to describe this performance structure. As various objects and bodies enter the demonstrational field in the course of the action, the field expands, transforming objects of everyday perception into objects of the demonstration. Triggered by cues marking the start of the performance, this concentrated attention and sense of anticipation is sustained until the final point, when it becomes clear that these tasks had all been “empty actions” and it was the anticipation itself that had been on display. As Monastyrski puts it, “the demonstrational field itself expands and becomes the object of observation.”06

The “dematerialization of the art object,” to borrow Lucy Lippard’s term, was in this case as much a critique of the

04 Ivan Chuikov, “Rasskaz I. Chuikova (O ‘Vremia deistviia’ i ‘Kartiny’),” Poezdki za gorod, 72.

05 The reference to John Cage was a conscious one. His avant-garde compositions had been performed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and his ideas were the subject of great interest (along with Eastern spirituality, Russian Orthodox Christianity, and mysticism) in Moscow’s intellectual circles.

06 Andrei Monastyrski, Preface to the first volume of Poezdki za gorod, 19.

conventions of exhibition as of the art object.07 “Our goal was not to ‘show’ something to the viewer-participants,” writes Monastyrski, “the goal consists of maintaining the feeling of anticipation as of an important, meaningful event.”08 In their focus on structure, ephemerality, and psychological experience, the group’s actions echoed the staunch rejection of institutional forms of painting and sculpture voiced in the 1960s by artists like Donald Judd or Joseph Kosuth.09 The message, however, was delivered not in the style of the Americans’ polemics, aimed as they were at the medium-centered American modernism of Clement Greenberg and Michael Fried, but as an exploration of immediate artistic concerns, including existential questions of the spiritual, the sacred, or the ineffable that painting seemed no longer capable of containing. It is as if painting itself had been “written upon” in a way that distracted from the viewer’s immersion in the process of perception; to reject painting and contemplate perception in the empty field was the response to this problem of institutionalization.10

At this point, a temporal paradox arises that is at the center of Collective Actions’ practice and its critique of exhibitions: if the object on display is consciousness itself as it experiences action (its own anticipation of “something about to happen”), what access do the viewers (not to mention those not present at the action) have to this elusive state? As Monastyrski writes,

...by the time we realize that this ‘looking’ was a ‘looking in the wrong direction,’ the main event has passed. We can only recall it in the present moment, but not observe it consciously, since at the time of its taking place, consciousness is busy elsewhere, is directed toward the perception of something else.11

If, as has been argued, museums stage modern man’s Enlightenment through the ritual performance of a particular kind of receptivity to the artworks on display, then Collective Actions’ displaced temporality undercuts this rhetoric of temporal and epistemological closure.12 Instead of investing the displayed object with a timeless, legible presence, the action’s meaning is perpetually deferred as the viewer must look back to contemplate what that experience and that experience and that experience was like. From the earliest actions, this making sense of experience was taken up in group discussions and materialized in the growing body of the archive. Audience members were asked to recount and comment on the actions in stories that joined photographs, audio, and video in the machine-typed, hand-bound volumes entitled Trips to the Countryside. Like performance, the tactile and discursive fabric of the artists-made archive became another exhibition space for the group’s ideal “outside observer.” Like the museum, its ordered pages seem materially and temporally fixed. Yet as soon as we attempt to access the event through language and the traces left on photo paper or film, we find the demonstrational field enlarged, but ourselves no closer to the action’s “truth” or

“meaning.”13

At the end of 1980, a number of artists came together to create an archive to document recent activity, serve as

07 Lucy Lippard, Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object... (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).

08 Monastyrski, Preface, 22.

09 I am referring here to statements such as Donald Judd, “Specific Objects,” Arts Yearbook 8 (1965) and Joseph Kosuth, “Art After Philosophy,” Studio International (October 1969).

10 On the “written upon” problem, see Monastyrski, Preface, 22.

11 Monastyrski, Preface, 23.

12 On the museum as ritual space, see Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (New York and London: Routledge, 1995).

13 Amelia Jones discusses the contingent quality of documentation in “‘Presence’ in Absentia: Experiencing Performance as Documentation,” Art Journal 56, no.4 (Winter 1997), 11–18. See also Sven Spieker on the modern archive’s “precarious oscillation between narrative and contingency” in The Big Archive: Art from Bureaucracy (Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2009).

Izleti u prirodu / Trips to the Countryside, The Norton and Nancy Dodge Collection of Nonconformist Art from the Soviet Union, Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, New Brunswick, NJ. snimila/Photo by: Yelena Kalinsky

portable exhibition space, and disseminate critical writings. This became the Moscow Archive of New Art (MANI) and the term soon became a label to indicate group identity.14 The first MANI folder came out in February 1981 and contained thirteen machine-typed texts by Boris Groys, Ilya Kabakov, Andrei Monastyrski, among others, and twenty-one envelopes enclosing photographs of artworks, descriptions, and in some cases actual works. Thus in its structure, MANI adopted the familiar curatorial strategy of the group show. Yet by including documentation of performances and works of art to be manipulated by the viewer, such as index card poems by Lev Rubinshtein or Monastyrski’s Motalka,15 it echoed the radical temporality and critical edge of Trips to the Countryside.

MANI is often praised for bringing together work by older and younger generations of Moscow’s conceptual artists, and its four folders are a well-focused snapshot of the vibrant activity taking place in the early 1980s. At the same time as new artists were appearing on the scene, internal disagreements within Collective Actions signaled a changing tide in the artistic climate. In 1980, when the first volume of Trips to the Countryside came out, Nikita Alekseev, another founding member, registered his disagreement with the direction the group was headed. In a text entitled “On Collective and Individual Actions, 1976–1980,” Alekseev provides a counterweight to Monastyrski’s singular focus on the observation of perception.16 He points to a group of actions not discussed in Monastyrski’s preface embracing qualities such as “objecthood,” the stimulation of different levels of consciousness without resorting to tricks of the kind seen in Pictures, and the act of abandoning something in nature. For Alekseev, the general trend away from object-based, meditative, and what he calls “alive” works and towards more structurally complex actions needing discussion and giving rise to the heavy archival aspect of the group’s practice signaled an undesirable insularity and hermeticism. The very qualities that gave the actions their particular character – festive eccentricity, communality, and remoteness from a dreary urban existence – had at times taken, in his view, a pernicious turn toward pseudo-canonicity, group snobbism, and meaningless disengagement from reality. Trips to the Countryside, Alekseev would soon write, was the tombstone marking Collective Actions’ grave.17

14 The MANI folders are alternately credited to Monastyrski and Viktor Skersis or Monastyrski and Lev Rubinshtein; see Vadim Zakharov,

“Papki MANI,” Pastor 3 (1993): 117–122; and Nikita Alekseev in Drugoe iskusstvo, 298.

15 A text-based work inviting the viewer to wind thread from one piece of cardboard to another.

16 Nikita Alekseev, “O kollektivnykh i individual’nykh aktsiiakh,” Poezdki za gorod, 87.

17 Nikita Alekseev, “Kogda v 1979 godu...,” Poezdki za gorod, 193.

MANI (Moscow Archive of New Art). Installation view from Performing the Archive: Collective Actions in the 1970s & 1980s, Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, New Brunswick, NJ. snimila/Photo by Yelena Kalinsky

Reading between the lines, we see in this rejection of Collective Actions’ more hermetic and extreme tendencies the yearning for a “normal” art world: for artworks both challenging and meaningful, for access to a broader public, to take part in a wider debate on the direction of contemporary art. Again, it seems, fundamental questions about art’s nature and status expressed themselves through questions of audiences and exhibitions. Soon, in the fall of 1982, Alekseev and several fellow conceptualists founded a gallery in Alekseev’s apartment to which they gave the name Aptart.18 As Margarita Tupitsyn noted at the time, the early 1980s saw many younger artists turn away from the “idealism and arcane theorizing of the Collective Actions group.”19 Sven Gundlakh, a regular exhibitor at Aptart expressed this attitude when he wrote:

[Collective Actions’] performances had become overburdened by piles of documentation and abstruse texts. It was not clear what exactly constituted the product of creation: the action itself or its photographs and descriptions. The latter were lost in the thick files of the artists’ remarks of the [sic] speculative nature.20

Aptart’s colorful, carnivalesque installations were the polar opposite of Collective Actions’ interminable black-and-white discursivity. Rather than concentrating on perception in

“empty” time and space, they filled every inch of the gallery space with provocative photographs, childish drawings, poems, collages, assisted readymades, and flickering constructions. The gallery was open any time Alekseev was home and welcomed not just invited guests, but strangers who had learned of it by word of mouth.21 If Moscow Conceptualism had abandoned the struggle for public exhibitions and turned its gaze inward, then Aptart’s appeal to an international “transavantgarde” made clear that the situation had changed once more. Artists redirected their gaze outward and put themselves again on display.22

Unofficial Soviet art’s changing attitudes towards exhibition – the struggle for a Soviet public after Stalin, Moscow Conceptualism’s rejection of the rhetoric of display, and the return to exhibitions with a vengeance in the 1980s – was closely linked to immediate artistic concerns and changing notions of art itself. And yet, the larger invisibility of unofficial art to both the Soviet art establishment and to the mainstream narrative of contemporary art played an important part in these developments, too. It is hard to imagine a long-term, engaged group practice that Collective Actions carried on in the 1970s and 1980s sustaining the same critical intensity or having the same resonance in an art world driven by museums, commercial galleries, and a for-profit art press. Even an independent art space would have difficulty garnering an equivalent level of audience engagement. Collective Actions’ strategy of perpetual deferral and heightened state of discursivity seems utterly strange or even utopian today. All that is left is its ever-growing archive, a mountain of texts, images, audio, and video that continues to pose its challenges to exhibition’s rhetoric. One example: a recent action took place entirely on the internet.23

18 Apt Art: Moscow Vanguard in the ’80s (Mechanicsville, M.D.: Cremona Foundation, 1985).

19 Margarita Tupitsyn, “The Decade ‘B.C.’ (Before Chernenko) in Contemporary Russian Art,” in Apt Art: Moscow Vanguard in the ’80s, 10.

20 Sven Gundlakh, quoted in Ibid.

21 See Nikita Alekseev’s account of this time in Riady pamiati (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008).

22 Alekseev uses the terms “New Wave” and “transavantgarde” in “Kogda v 1979 godu...,” 194.

23 http://conceptualism.letov.ru/118/KD-ACTIONS-118.htm

The larger invisibility

of unofficial art to

both the Soviet art

establishment and

to the mainstream

narrative of

contemporary art

played an important

part in these

developments, too.

It is hard to imagine

a long-term, engaged

group practice that

Collective Actions

carried on in the

1970s and 1980s

sustaining the same

critical intensity

or having the same

resonance in an art

world driven by

museums, commercial

galleries, and the

for-profit art press

34 35U povijesti neslužbenih likovnih izložaba u Moskvi

dva događaja definiraju razdoblje između Staljinove smrti i raspada Sovjetskog Saveza: Hruščovljev posjet

izložbi 30 godina MOSKh-a u Manježu u prosincu 1962. i Prva jesenska izložba slika na otvorenom u Beljajevu (poznata i kao

“buldožerska izložba“) 1974. Obje izložbe prouzročile su sukobe između službene i neslužbene umjetnosti i sovjetskih vlasti, pojačale granice između službene i neslužbene umjetnosti te dodatno izjednačile neslužbenu umjetnost s borbom za vidljivost i širu publiku.01 No, usredotočimo li se na te vidljive javne sukobe, izlažemo se opasnosti da neposredne umjetničke teme prikrijemo prikazima cenzure i represije, da neslužbenu umjetničku praksu stavimo u kontekst konformizma i disidentstva te je projiciramo na poznatu priču o zakašnjelom modernističkom napretku. Pojava albuma, konceptualističke objektne poezije i performancea namijenjenih malobrojnoj i odabranoj publici u privatnim ateljeima ili na poljima u predgrađima, 1970-ih, dokaz je da barem neki umjetnici nisu tražili pristup široj sovjetskoj publici niti službeno priznanje svojih izložbenih aktivnosti. Naprotiv, taj konceptualni zaokret značio je prevrednovanje onoga što znači izlagati i doživljavati umjetnička djela, a katkad je eksplicitno tematizirao noviju izložbenu povijest te odbacivao i izložbu kao konvenciju i pojam umjetničkog djela koje ona pretpostavlja. Posebice dvije vrste konceptualističke prakse – performance i arhive umjetničkih suradnji – artikulirale su ta nova gledišta na umjetnička djela i javnost krajem 1970-ih i početkom 1980-ih. Iako su služile kao alternativni izložbeni prostori u vrijeme kad su državni muzeji i izložbene dvorane bili nedostupni, one su nadišle tu nužnost i objavile pomak u umjetničkim prioritetima koji je postao jednom od karakteristika pokreta koji se danas naziva moskovskim konceptualizmom.

Ruski performance uvijek je poticao umjetničku suradnju i težio smanjivanju udaljenosti između umjetnika i publike. Za razliku od futurističkih uličnih spektakla Mejerholdovog avangardnog teatra, perfmormance art 1970-ih ograničila se na malobrojnu publiku prijatelja i kolega umjetnika.02 Skupina umjetnika i pjesnika koja će se nedugo potom nazvati Kolektivne akcije počela je 1976. izvoditi akcije na otvorenom, zasnovane na poluprivatnim čitanjima poezije. U akcijama kao što su bile Appearance (13. ožujka 1976.) i Lieblich (2. travnja 1976.) malobrojna publika bila je pozvana da se okupi na polju na koje bi organizator izbio iz šume i uručio im dokumentarne certifikate, ili bi pak pod snijegom neprekidno brujala električna zujalica.03 U kontekstu novijih događaja i

01 O aferi u Manježu vidi Yurii Gerchuk, “Krovoizliianie v MOSKh”, ili Khrushchev v Manezhe (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008) i Susan Emily Reid, Destalinization and the Remodernization of Soviet Art: The Search for a Contemporary Realism, 1953–1963 (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996). O Bulldozer Show, vidi Laura Hoptman i Tomas Pospiszyl, ur, Primary Documents: A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s (New York: The Museum of Modern Art; Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2002), 65–77, i I. Alpatova, L. Talochkin, i N. Tamruchi, “Drugoe iskusstvo”, Moskva 1956–1988 (Moscow: Galart, 2005), 197–200.

02 Margarita Masterkova [Tupitsyn], “Performances in Moscow,” A-Ya: Unofficial Russian Art Review 4 (1982), 6.

03 Kollektivnye deistviia, Poezdki za gorod (Moscow: Ad Marginem, 1998). Dokumentarna građa može se naći online na http://letov.conceptualism.ru/KD-actions.html.

lokalnih institucijskih struktura, ta estetika bila je radikalno repozicioniranje tradicionalnog umjetničkog susreta u muzeju ili izložbenoj dvorani. Te akcije izvodile su se daleko od grada i njegova umjetničkog establishmenta; gledaoce se pozivalo osobno, usmenom predajom ili raspačavanim pozivnicama, a uspjeh se mjerio u razgovoru i raspravama, a nikad u specijaliziranom umjetničkom tisku niti u akademskom establishmentu.

No glavna razlika bila je skidanje naglaska s izloženog predmeta, taktika koja je promišljeno istaknuta u prvi plan u drugoj akciji, Slike (11. veljače 1979.). Tu se publici davalo omotnice s informacijama povezanima s akcijom i upućivalo ih se da formiraju red na polju. Zatim su neko vrijeme proučavali

“umjetnička djela” tako nastale “izložbe”, koja se prostirala gotovo 50 metara u snijegu. Tijekom akcije postalo je jasno da su bilješke na omotnicama većinom lažne i da je ključ akcije zapravo gotovo neprimjetno povlačenje dvoje sudionika s polja. Kako je kasnije primijetio jedan gledalac-sudionik, akcija je bila izvedena kao elegantan mađioničarski trik namijenjen tome da razobliči iluziju, nedostatnost rituala koji se odvijao. Usprkos ugodnoj atmosferi, prijateljima u publici, i zabavnoj igri s omotnicama, sve je to ustuknulo pred stvarnom akcijom (neprimjetnim nestankom).04

Ako su Appearance i Lieblich bili svojevrsno cageovsko “slušanje tišine”, onda su Slike značile korak dalje tako što su stimulirale percepciju na nesvjesnoj razini.05 Ritualna struktura akcije usmjerila je pažnju gledalaca i u njima potaknula stanje očekivanja, kao da će slijedeći upute ostvariti dobitak, vidjeti ono što su došli vidjeti. Andrej Monastirski, jedan od osnivača skupine, spominje termim “demonstracijsko polje” kako bi opisao tu strukturu performancea. Kako razni predmeti i tijela tijekom akcije dolaze na demonstracijsko polje, polje se proširuje, transformira predmete svakodnevne percepcije u predmete demonstracije. Potaknuta signalima koji obilježavaju početak performancea, ta koncentrirana pažnja i osjećaj očekivanja održava se sve do posljednjeg trenutka, kad postaje jasno da su svi ti zadaci bili “prazne akcije” i da je prikazano sâmo očekivanje. Kako kaže Monastirski, “sâmo demonstracijsko polje se širi i postaje predmet promatranja”.06

“Dematerijalizacija umjetničkog predmeta”, da se poslužimo izrazom Lucy Lippard, u tom je slučaju bila u jednakoj mjeri kritika konvencija izložbe kao i kritika umjetničkog predmeta.7

“Naš cilj nije bio ‘prikazati’ nešto gledaocima-sudionicima”, piše Monastirski, “cilj se sastoji od održavanja osjećaja očekivanja kao važnog, značajnog događaja”.08 U usredotočenosti na strukturu, privremenost i psihološko iskustvo, akcije te skupine bile su odjek odlučnog odbacivanja institucionalnih formi slikarstva i kiparstva koje su 1960-ih zastupali umjetnici

04 Ivan Chuikov, “Rasskaz I. Chuikova (O ‘Vremia deistviia’ i ‘Kartiny),” Poezdki za gorod, str. 72.

05 Referenca na Johna Cagea bila je svjesna. Njegove avangardne kompozicije izvođene su u Sovjetskom Savezu 1970-ih i njegove ideje bile su predmetom velikog zanimanja (uz istočnjačku duhovnost, rusko pravoslavlje i misticizam) u moskovskim intelektualnim krugovima.

06 Andrei Monastyrski, predgovor prvoj knjizi Poezdki za gorod, str. 19.

07 Lucy Lippard, Six Years: The dematerialization of the art object... (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).

08 Monastyrski, predgovor, str. 22.

Usredotočimo li se na

vidljive javne sukobe,

izlažemo se opasnosti

da neposredne

umjetničke teme

prikrijemo prikazima

cenzure i represije,

da neslužbenu

umjetničku praksu

stavimo u kontekst

konformizma i

disidentstva te je

projiciramo na

poznatu priču

o zakašnjelom

modernističkom

napretku.

Pojava albuma,

konceptualističke

objektne poezije

i performancea

namijenjenih

malobrojnoj i

odabranoj publici u

privatnim ateljeima

ili na poljima u

predgrađima, 70-ih,

dokaz je da barem

neki umjetnici nisu

tražili pristup široj

sovjetskoj publici niti

službeno priznanje

svojih izložbenih

aktivnosti

poput Donalda Judda ili Josepha Kosutha.09 No poruka nije bila isporučena u stilu američke polemike, usmjerene američkom medijskom modernizmu Clementa Greenberga i Michaela Frieda, nego kao istraživanje neposrednih umjetničkih tema, uključujući egzistencijalna pitanja o duhovnosti, o svetosti ili onom neizrecivom što slikarstvo, kako se čini, više ne može obuhvaćati. To je kao da se “pisalo po” samom slikarstvu na način koji odvlači pažnju od gledaočeve uronjenosti u proces percpecije; odgovor na taj problem institucionalizacije je odbacivanje slikarstva i kontempliranje percepcije na pustom polju.10

Tada se pojavljuje vremenski paradoks koji je u središtu prakse Kolektivnih akcija i njihove kritike izložaba: ako je prikazani predmet sama svijest koja doživljava akciju (vlastito očekivanje da će se “nešto dogoditi“), kakav pristup tom teško dokučivom stanju imaju gledatelji (a da ni ne spominjemo one koji nisu bili prisutni akciji)? Kako piše Monastirski,

...kad shvatimo da je to “gledanje” bilo “gledanje u pogrešnom smjeru”, glavni događaj je već prošao. U sadašnjem trenutku možemo ga se samo sjećati, ali ne možemo ga svjesno promatrati, jer u vrijeme kad se događao svijest je bila zauzeta drugdje, bila je usmjerena na percepciju nečega drugoga.11

Ako, kao što se tvrdi, muzeji prikazuju prosvjetljenost modernog čovjeka ritualnom praksom osobite vrste receptivnosti za prikazana umjetnička djela, onda pomaknuta temporalnost Kolektivnih akcija potkopava tu retoriku vremenske i epistemološke zatvorenosti.12 Umjesto da prikazani predmet prožme bezvremenom, čitljivom prisutnošću, značenje akcije neprekidno se odlaže jer se gledalac mora osvrtati i kontemplirati kakvo je bilo ovo iskustvo, to iskustvo, ono iskustvo. Od najranijih akcija, to osmišljavanje iskustva razmatralo se u grupnim raspravama i materijaliziralo u rastućem arhivskom korpusu. Publiku se pozivalo da prepričava i komentira akcije u pričama koje su pratile fotografije, audio i video u strojno otipkanim, ručno uvezanim svescima pod naslovom Izleti u prirodu. Poput performancea, taktilno i diskurzivno tkivo arhiva koje su stvarali umjetnici postalo je dodatni izložbeni prostor za idealnog “vanjskog promatrača” skupine. Poput muzeja, poslagane stranice doimaju se materijalno i vremenski uređene. No čim pokušamo pristupiti događaju jezikom i putem tragova na fotopapiru ili filmu, vidimo povećano demonstracijsko polje, ali mi sami nismo nimalo bliže “istini” ni “značenju” akcije.13

09 Pritom mislim na izjave kao što je ona Donalda Judda, “Specific Objects,” Arts Yearbook 8 (1965) i Joseph Kosuth, “Art After Philosophy,” Studio International (October 1969).

10 O problemu “pisanja po” vidi Monastyrski, predgovor, str. 22.

11 Monastyrski, predgovor, str. 23.

12 O muzeju kao ritualnom prostoru vidi Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (New York and London: Routledge, 1995).

13 Amelia Jones raspravlja o kontingentnoj kvaliteti dokumentacije u “‘Presence’ in Absentia: Experiencing Performance as Documentation,” Art Journal 56, no.4 (Winter 1997), 11–18. Vidi i Svena Spiekera o

“nesigurnom titranju između naracije i kontingencije” modernog arhiva u The Big Archive: Art from Bureaucracy (Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2009).

nevidljive izložbe:performance i arhiva u moskovskom konceptualizmu Yelena Kalinsky

Kolektivne akcije, Slike. Sukhanov park, Moskva / Collective Actions, Pictures, Sukhanovo Park, Moskva/Moscow. Veljača/February 11, 1979. Ljubaznošću/Courtesy: Andrei Monastyrski

3736Krajem 1980. okupio se određen broj umjetnika kako bi načinio arhivu s dokumentacijom nedavnih aktivnosti koja bi služila kao prijenosan izložbeni prostor i izvor kritičkih tekstova. Ona je postala Moskovska arhiva nove umjetnosti (MANI) i taj naziv ubrzo je postao oznakom identiteta grupe.14 Prvi MANI-ev dosje izašao je u veljači 1981. i sadržavao je trinaest strojno otipkanih tekstova Borisa Groysa, Ilje Kabakova, Andreja Monastirskog, između ostalih, i dvadeset jednu omotnicu s fotografijama umjetničkih djela, opisima, a u nekim slučajevima i sa stvarnim djelima. Tako je svojom strukturom MANI prihvatio poznatu kustosku strategiju grupne izložbe. No uključivši dokumentaciju performancea i umjetnička djela kojima gledatelj može rukovati, poput pjesama na indeksnim karticama Leva Rubinštajna ili Motalke Monastirskog,15 arhiva je bila odjek radikalne temporalnosti i kritičke oštrice Izleta u prirodu.

MANI se često hvali zbog toga što je okupio radove starije i mlađe generacije moskovskih konceptalnih umjetnika, i njegova četiri dosjea su dobro uoštrena snimka žive aktivnosti koja se odvijala početkom 1980-ih. Dok su se novi umjetnici pojavljivali na sceni, unutarnja neslaganja unutar Kolektivnih akcija označila su promjenu umjetničke klime. 1980. godine, kad je izašao prvi svezak Izleta u prirodu, Nikita Aleksejev, jedan od osnivača, zabilježio je svoje neslaganje sa smjerom kojim je grupa krenula. U tekstu pod naslovom “O kolektivnim i individualnim akcijama 1976-1980” Aleksejev pruža protutežu Monastirskom i njegovoj usmjerenosti samo na promatranje percepcije.16 Ističe niz akcija koje Monastirski nije obuhvatio u svom predgovoru, uključujući kvalitete poput “predmetnosti”, poticanja različitih razina svijesti bez pribjegavanja trikovima kakve vidimo u Slikama, i čina bacanja nečega u prirodu. Za Aleksejeva, opći trend udaljavanja od radova utemeljenih na predmetima, meditativnih i onih koje naziva “živima”, te približavanja strukturalno kompleksnijim akcijama koje treba raspravljati, te poticanje arhivskog aspekta grupne prakse, bile su naznake nepoželjnog izoliranja i hermetizma. Iste kvalitete koje su akcijama dale osobit karakter – slavljenička ekscentričnost, zajedništvo i udaljenost od sumorne urbane egzistencije – katkad su, po njegovu mišljenju, značile opasan zaokret prema pseudokanoničnosti, grupnom snobizmu i besmislenom izlaženju iz društva. Izleti u prirodu, ubrzo će napisati Aleksejev, bili su nadgrobni kamen Kolektivnih akcija.17

Čitajući između redaka, u tom odbacivanju hermetičnih i ekstremnih tendencija Kolektivnih akcija vidimo čežnju za

“normalnim” svijetom umjetnosti: za izazovnim i smislenim djelima, za pristupom široj publici, za sudjelovanjem u široj

14 Dosjei MANI alternativno se pripisuju Monastirskom i Viktoru Skersisu ili pak Monastirskom i Levu Rubinštajnu; vidi Vadim Zakarov, “Papki MANI”, Pastor 3 (1993): str. 117-122, i Nikita Aleksejev u Drugoe iskusstvo, str. 298.

15 Rad baziran na tekstu koji poziva gledaoca da mota nit od jednog komada kartona do drugoga.

16 Nikita Alekseev, “O kollektivnykh i individual’nykh aktsiiakh,” Poezdki za gorod, 87.

17 Nikita Alekseev, “Kogda v 1979 godu..,” Poezdki za gorod, str. 193.

raspravi o smjeru suvremene umjetnosti. Ponovno, kako se čini, bitna pitanja o prirodi i statusu umjetnosti izrazila su se preko pitanja o publici i izložbama. Ubrzo, na jesen 1982, Aleksejev i nekoliko kolega konceptualista utemeljili su galeriju u Aleksejevljevom stanu, koju su nazvali Aptart.18 Kako je tada istaknula Margarita Tupitsin, početkom 1980-ih mnogi mladi umjetnici odbacili su “idealizam i zakučasto teoretiziranje grupe Kolektivne akcije”.19 Sven Gundlakh, redoviti izlagač u Aptartu, izrazio je taj stav kad je napisao:

Performancei [Kolektivnih akcija] postali su preopterećeni gomilama dokumentacije i neprohodnih tekstova. Nije bilo jasno što točno čini proizvod kreativnog čina: sama akcija ili njene fotografije i opisi. Potonji su bili izgubljeni u debelim dosjeima punima umjetničkih napomena spekulativne [sic] prirode.20

Živopisne, karnevaleskne instalacije u Aptartu bile su dijametralna suprotnost beskrajnoj crno-bijeloj diskurzivnosti Kolektivnih akcija. Umjesto da se koncentriraju na percepciju u

“praznom” vremenu i prostoru, ispunjavale su svaki centimetar galerijskog prostora provokativnim fotografijama, djetinjastim crtežima, pjesmama, kolažima, potpomognutim readymadeima i svjetlucavim konstrukcijama. Galerija je bila otvorena kad god je Aleksejev bio kod kuće i dočekivao ne samo pozvane goste nego i strance koji su za nju čuli usmenom predajom.21 Ako je moskovski konceptualizam odbacio borbu za javne izložbe i okrenuo se samome sebi, onda je Aptartovo pozivanje na međunaronu “transavangardu” pojasnilo da se situacija još jedanput promijenila. Umjetnici su preusmjerili pogled prema van i ponovno se izložili.22

Promjenljivi stavovi neslužbene sovjetske umjetnosti prema izlaganju – borba za sovjetsku publiku nakon Staljina, odbacivanje retorike izlaganja u moskovskom konceptualizmu i odlučan povratak izložbama 1980-ih – bili su blisko povezani s neposrednim interesima umjetnika i promjenljivim poimanjima same umjetnosti. No ipak, važnu ulogu u tim procesima igrala je i veća nevidljivost neslužbene umjetnosti i za sovjetski umjetnički establishment i za mainstream priču suvremene umjetnosti. Teško je zamisliti da dugoročna, angažirana grupna praksa kakvu su Kolektivne akcije provodile 1970-ih i 1980-ih održi isti kritički intenzitet ili da ima isti odjek u svijetu umjetnosti kojim vladaju muzeji, komercijalne galerije i profitni umjetnički tisak. Čak i nezavisni umjetnički prostor teško bi ostvario podjednaku razinu angažmana publike. Strategija trajnog odlaganja i povišenog stanja diskurzivnosti Kolektivnih akcija danas se doima vrlo neobičnom, pa čak i utopijskom. Ostala je samo sve veća arhiva, brdo tekstova, slika, audio- i videozapisa koji i dalje upućuju izazov retorici izložbe. Tek jedan primjer: jedna od novijih akcija održala se u cijelosti na internetu.23

18 Apt Art: Moscow Vanguard in the ‘80s (Mechanicsville, M.D.: Cremona Foundation, 1985).

19 Margarita Tupitsyn, “The Decade ‘B.C.’ (Before Chernenko) in Contemporary Russian Art,” u Apt Art: Moscow Vanguard in the ‘80s, str. 10.

20 Sven Gundlakh, citiran u Ibid.

21 Vidi prikaz tog vremena Nikite Aleksejeva u Riady pamiati (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008).

22 Aleksejev se služi izrazima “novi val” i “avangarda” u “Kogda v 1979 godu…”, str. 194.

23 http://conceptualism.letov.ru/118/KD-ACTIONS-118.htm

Čitajući između

redaka, u tom

odbacivanju

hermetičnih

i ekstremnih

tendencija

Kolektivnih akcija

vidimo čežnju

za “normalnim”

svijetom umjetnosti:

za izazovnim i

smislenim djelima,

za pristupom

široj publici, za

sudjelovanjem u

široj raspravi o

smjeru suvremene

umjetnosti. Ponovno,

kako se čini, bitna

pitanja o prirodi i

statusu umjetnosti

izrazila su se preko

pitanja o publici i

izložbama

What motivated you to turn from poetry to happening and actions?There was no turn from poetry to happening and actions, but its escalation towards and into them and to other directions also, like concrete-poetry, visual-poetry, objects, environment, music, architecture, film, etc. The method is based on two complementary principles: all and everything is poetry ab ovo, and poiesis is practically extendable into techné – in the order of its regrouping,

“poetization”, occasionally constructing a new word, a new element.

Earlier, while I was writing (“I was written by”) “‘pure‘, ‘metaphysical’ poetry”, the aim was the transcending of the given temporal towards the level of Eternity, the description and realization by the word of the “holy tendency” towards the One. When this type of poetry was criticized, attacked, censored, banned and punished by the given, surrounding state-power’s idiotic ideology-brick-a-brac, it became obvious that this type of poetry as such is limited by its own voluntary self-isolation as well, while there is a collectively still not yet cultivated territory for poetry: the newly discovered, rich and exciting potentiality, possibility and realizability of the regrouping of the present till now excluded from the poetic dimension. That is the revolting of the universal Kali Yuga-status quo – exactly by a parallel process of the existing repressive/intolerant state-requirement – by my new finding: the Neo Socialist Realism. The picking up of the elements of “pop-reality” is the coming back to physics, the involvement in the “life – history” – naturally without the betrayal or even forgetting the metaphysics – is the lyric “I”’s transposition into the epic “We”, later the crystallization of the “We” into the “She”, the mythical Mutant.

How did you encounter the genre of happening, what did you find interesting/inspiring in it at that time (1966)?While I was fed up with the ridiculous psychoanalytic kitsch of Abstract Expressionism in the mid-60s already, I had unsolvable, general semantic problems in poetry also. In 1965 suddenly I made – as a spontaneous break out from my conventional mentality – recipes of some objects (intermedial per se) – qualified as “pop” and “conceptual” things. I planned to show them publicly, but the internal and external situation was not ripe yet. I wrote – still in the earlier, “metaphysical” approach – my “last poem” in January 1966, and was waiting paralyzed during many weeks for a really new intuition.

Although I was sure for a while that a sort of “contra-abstract” theory and practice must rotate the process of art-history in a given moment, I had a very pejorative opinion about Pop art. In spite of this antipathy – more precisely: because of this

Dóra Hegyi & Zsuzsa László[tranzit. hu] in conversation

with Támas St. Aubysuperintendent of IPUT, agent of NETRAF /Neo-Socialist. Realist. IPUT’s Global Counter-Arthist.ory-Falsifiers Front/

The unprepared

invited people were

shocked by the

unexpected process,

they understood that

they themselves, their

presence and their

destiny became parts

and participants of

an essentially new

history. It was like

a trans-baptism for

everybody.

The press reacted as

it used to: libels and

denunciations.

But what else could it

do? They realized that

the world overrode

by the Happening

was theirs. How

would it look like if

the press would press

for a Global, Eternal

Happening?

Osvrt na “Ručak” Lászlóa Kamondyija: Meditacija na prvi mađarski hepening. In memoriam Batu Khan / Review of “The Lunch” by László Kamondy: Meditation on the first Hungarian happening: The Lunch. In memoriam Batu Khan, snimio/Photo by: Gyula Zaránd, objavljeno/published in Tükör, September 13, 1966. Ljubaznošću/Courtesy: IPUTNPU-Archives

Izložba slika na otvorenom (uz “Buldoždersku izložbu”) / Open-Air

Exhibition of Paintings (following the “Bulldozer Show”), Ismailovski Park/

Izmailovsky Park, Moskva/Moscow. Rujan/September 1974. Ljubaznošću/Courtesy:

Norton Dodge Archive, Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, New Brunswick, NJ.

38 39

– one day I decided to write some poems in the spirit of Pop art – as an endurance test – and during the composing of the different text-materials the reason of Pop art became obvious for me. I found myself back to the sweet home, back to reality, not to the high metaphysical one, but to the subreal, the pop underground. And the semantic problem evaporated. And there was no metaphysical standstill either, but medium and intermedium as cause and effect, global mass-repetition as history, and domino-effect and chain-reaction as running to the revolution.

At that sparklingly fresh moment of enlightenment an awkward and despising article was published in the May 1966 issue of the periodical Film, Theatre, Music mentioning some happenings in the US and West-Europe. Despite the author’s bad-will, the extreme importance of the Happening as such was apparent. I met this notion and the name of Allan Kaprow and Joseph Beuys in this article the first time. The recipes of the objects I made some months earlier got a tremendous substantiation.

Ignited, we channelled (Gábor Altorjay and I – with the co-acting of Jankovics Miklós and Varannay István, supported by Miklós Erdély, and sponsored by Enikő Balla) the first Hungarian Happening in July of 1966. Some weeks later we got a book edited by Wolf Vostell and Jürgen Becker: Happenings, and we understood that we were not lonely madmen, but in the midst of a huge intercontinental movement.

The main idea in a Happening is the replacement of the artist by the public – the public becomes the creative actor – and as a consequence the replacement of the given history with autonomous acts done on the given history itself by the

“public” itself. That is, a new history driven not by an “artist”’s interest, but by the interest of the participating individual non-art-artists, detached, freed from the conventional dichotomy of the hierarchic contents. The reality, the destiny, the history changes by the will of the transmuters in the personalized direct-democratic series of events. The interacting acts are functioning in a chain-reaction process, so all and everything becomes rapidly and in an experienceable way linked to all and every other elements – not as in slow and dark history – and the whole set of actions are interconnecting a flux of impulses. The Happening is a network of participants, where History becomes an instantly continuous flow of teleportations of things and relations and ideas: telecommunications.

What significance did the title (Lunch, in memoriam Batu Khan), the location (a cellar), and the objects and tools used have?It is difficult to find something more basic, more earthly, more physical than eating and unloading – so we did that. It is difficult to find something more evident, more accurate, more contemporary than a cellar at a time of underground ideas and practices. It is difficult to find a better sub-title than the reference to the supposed builder of the cellar. It is difficult to find something manmade not suitable for its destruction. It is difficult to find matter not for colliding, fusing, smashing and transilluminating it by the Will.

How did the audience and the press react to the happening?The unprepared invited people were shocked by the unexpected process, they understood that they themselves, their presence and their destiny became parts and participants of an essentially new history. It was like a trans-baptism for everybody. An initiation into a more authentic, a more profound, a more deserved, liveable and interesting life, worthy to the people between the repressed and the oppressor, to the race between the mythic demons and the mythic angels, to the individual between the One and the Infinite.

The press reacted as it used to: libels and denunciations.But what else could it do? They realized that the world

overrode by the Happening was theirs. How would it look like if the press would press for a Global, Eternal Happening?

Did your relationship to the audience change through various happenings and actions? If yes, how?

Every action and happening is aiming at a new structure of the given elements. Since the various happenings – unfortunately – could not generate a world-wide aesthetic uprising yet, we must experiment with it till it will go by itself. Non-equality, non-fraternity, non-liberty is kitsch.

What influences did you have here and abroad? The state-power was self-contradicting: the military-mercantile bureaucracy’s punishing system banned my travel to western countries, and from 1968 I could not travel even to the so-called socialist countries either, so the influences – better to say: “focal points” – were rather limited and sporadic. I would mention only one name here: Béla Hamvas – it covers all the other corresponding “hot-spots” from the megalithic cultures, brahmanism, Echnaton pharaoh, sufi, etc. through Fra Angelico, Angelus Silesius, Purcell, Jakob Böhme, etc. up to Nietzsche, Malevich, Mahatma Gandhi, René Guenon, etc. The daily food was Gerry Mulligan and R’n’R, and the party as the art of the epoch was practiced wildly. The concrete and electronic music by dr. László Végh presented in semi-legal situations at apartments in 1963 was a revelation – it derailed me from puberty to adulthood. There were some chances to find some interesting sources during my frequent trips to Poland from 1963, like the Warsaw Autumn, the international Polish festival of contemporary music.

The interest changed radically after the Lunch-happening in 1966. Marcel Duchamp, John Cage, George Brecht, Allan Kaprow, Wolf Vostell, Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Henry Flynt, Maciunas, Malcolm X, Frantz Fanon, Timothy Leary, Abbie Hoffman, etc. and Dada, Pop art, Actionism, Fluxus, Concept art, Conceptual art, Mail art, Project art and all the related trends became the subject of my interventions – still through secondary sources of information until 1975 when I could leave grey Hungary legally – although illegally sent to golden exile by the illegal khaki authority.

How did you encounter fluxus and what did you find inspiring in it?By the above mentioned book about Happening.

The inspiring in Fluxus is that it excludes the notion of the artist as a talented, almost superhuman being from the creative process, more precisely: it includes the “untalented” into it, and by this it reassesses the whole phenomena of the creative process.

A new outlook on life, a new ethos. Non-art-art is for and by everybody.

How did you get involved in fine art and exhibition-making?By the above mentioned escalation of poetry.

Practically speaking: by the “poetization” or conceptualization of the given by the objects I made in 1965, then by the involvement in the Happening and Environment as such in 1966, and then by the foundation of the International Parallel Union of Telecommunications, established under the cover-name of Parallel Course / Study Track in 1968. The Subsistence Level Standard Project 1984 W is the very non-art-art-operation of IPUT. The mere art pieces are simply by-products of the superintendent’s hobby.

Exhibition is just another way of publication of printed matters. Interacting intermedial action is just another way of liberating history. Shabbat / Wei Wu Wei / St.Rike is just another way towards the Mythic Free Will Self-Salvation.

Genf – Budapest – Istanbul – Varanasi, 16. 09. 2009.

Ručak (in memoriam Batu Khan), Happening, Budimpešta, 1966. / Lunch (in memoriam Batu Khan) Happening - Budapest, 1966 Snimio / Photos: Gyula Zaránd, Ljubaznošću / Courtesy of IPUTNPU-Archives

The inspiring in Fluxus is that it

excludes the notion of the artist

as a talented, almost superhuman

being from the creative process,

more precisely: it includes the

“untalented” into it

40 41Što vas je motiviralo da s poezije prijeđete na happening i akcije?Nije bilo prijelaza s poezije na happening i akcije nego je poezija težila prema njima i prerasla u njih, kao i u drugim smjerovima, poput konkretne poezije, vizualne poezije, objekata, environmenta, glazbe, arhitekture, filma itd. Metoda se temelji na dva komplementarna načela: sve je poezija ab ovo, i poezija je praktično proširiva na techné – kako bi se regrupirala,

“poetizirala”, povremeno stvarajući novu riječ, nov element.Prije, kad sam pisao “‘čistu’, ‘metafizičku’ poeziju” (“bio

pisan njome”), cilj mi je bio transcendirati dano vremensko, prema razini vječnosti, opisati i riječju ostvariti “svetu težnju” prema Jednome. Kad je ta poezija naišla na kritiku, napade, cenzuru, zabranu i kaznu dane, idiotske državne ideologije tadašnjeg okruženja, postalo je očito da je ta vrsta poezije kao takve ograničena i vlastitom, dobrovoljnom samoizolacijom, kad postoji kolektivan, još ne kultiviran teritorij za poeziju: novootkrivena, bogata i uzbudljiva potencijalnost, mogućnost i ostvarivost regrupiranja sadašnjice, dosad isključena iz poetske dimenzije. To je remećenje općeg statusa quo u razdoblju Kali-yuge – upravo procesom paralelnim postojećem represivno-netolerantnim zahtjevima države – putem mog novog izuma: neosocijalističkog realizma. Uzimanje elemenata

“pop-stvarnosti” je povratak fizici, uključenje u “životnu povijest” – naravno, bez izdaje, a kamoli zaborava metafizike – transpozicija lirskoga “ja” u epsko “mi”, a poslije i kristalizacija toga “mi” u “ona”, mitskoga Mutanta.

Kako ste upoznali žanr happeninga, što vam je u njemu bilo zanimljivo/inspirativno u to vrijeme (1966)?Sredinom 60-ih već mi je bilo dosta smiješnog psihoanalitčkog kiča apstraktnog ekspresionizma. Imao sam nerješive, opće semantičke probleme i u poeziji. 1965. iznenada sam načinio – kao spontani raskid sa svojim konvencionalnim mentalitetom

– recepte nekih objekata (po sebi intermedijskih) – označenih kao

“pop” i “konceptualni”. Planirao sam ih pokazati javnosti, ali unutarnja i vanjska situacija još nije bila zrela. U siječnju 1966. napisao sam – još u ranijem,

“metafizičkom” pristupu – svoju “posljednju pjesmu” i tjednima paralizirano čekao doista novu intuiciju.

Iako sam već neko vrijeme bio siguran da svojevrsna

“protuapstraktna” teorija i praksa mora zaokrenuti proces povijesti umjetnosti u danom trenutku, imao sam vrlo loše mišljenje o pop-artu. Usprkos toj antipatiji – preciznije rečeno: upravo zbog nje – jednoga dana odlučio sam napisati neke

pjesme u duhu pop-arta – kao test izdržljivosti – i tijekom slaganja raznih tekstualnih materijala, logika pop-arta postala mi je očita. Vratio sam se kući, vratio sam se u stvarnost, ne u visoko metafizičku nego u podstvarnost, u pop-podzemlje. I semantički problem je nestao. A nije bilo ni metafizičke slijepe ulice, nego medij i intermedij kao uzrok i posljedica, globalno masovno ponavljanje kao povijest, i domino-efekt i lančana reakcija kao ono što vodi prema revoluciji.

U tom trenutku svježeg prosvjetljenja objavljen je neugodan i denuncijantnski članak u svibanjskom broju časopisa Film, kazalište, glazba, u kojem se spominjalo neke happeninge u Sjedinjenim Državama i Zapadnoj Evropi. Usprkos autorovoj zlonamjernosti, bila je očita velika važnost happeninga kao takvoga. U tom članku sam prvi put naišao na taj pojam i na imena Allana Kaprowa i Josepha Beuysa. Recepti za objekte koje sam načinio nekoliko mjeseci prije toga dobili su snažno potkrepljenje.

Nadahnuti time, organizirali smo (Gábor Altorjay i ja – uz suradnju Jankovicsa Miklósa i Varannaya Istvána, uz podršku Miklósa Erdélyja i pokroviteljstvo Enikö Balla) prvi mađarski happening u srpnju 1966. Nekoliko tjedana potom dobili smo knjigu Happenings, koju su uredili Wolf Vostell i Jürgen Becker, i shvatili smo da nismo usamljeni luđaci nego smo usred velikog interkontinentalnog pokreta.

Glavna ideja u happeningu je zamjena umjetnika publikom – publika postaje kretativan akter – i kao posljedica toga, zamjena dane povijesti autonomnim činovima koje sama “publika” obavlja na danoj povijesti. Naime, na novoj povijesti koju ne pokreće “umjetnikov” interes nego interes sudjelujućih neumjetnika-umjetnika, nezainteresiranih, oslobođenih od konvencionalne dihotomije hijerarhijskih sadržaja. Stvarnost, sudbina, povijest mijenjaju se voljom agensa promjene u niz personaliziranih događaja direktne demokracije. Ti interaktivni činovi funkcioniraju u procesu lančane reakcije, tako da sve postaje brzo i na iskusiv način povezano sa svim drugim elementima – ne kao u polaganoj i mračnoj povijesti – i fluks impulsa međupovezuje cijeli niz akcija. Happening je mreža sudionika, pri čemu povijest postaje neprekinuta struja teleportacija stvari, odnosa i ideja: telekomunikacije.

Kakvu je važnost imao naslov (Ručak, in memoriam Batu-kanu), lokacija (podrum) i upotrijebljeni predmeti i alatke?Teško je naći nešto temeljnije, zemaljskije, tjelesnije od jela i olakšavanja – pa smo to činili. Teško je naći nešto očitije, preciznije, privremenije od podruma u vrijeme underground ideja i praksa. Teško je naći bolji podnaslov od reference na pretpostavljenog graditelja podruma. Teško je naći nešto što je načinio čovjek, a da nije pogodno za uništenje. Teško je naći materijal koji nije za sudaranje, stapanje, razbijanje i transiluminaciju Voljom.

Kako su publika i tisak reagirali na happening?Nepripremljeni uzvanici bili su šokirani neočekivanim procesom, shvatili su da oni sami, njihova prisutnost i njihova sudbina postaju dijelovi i sudionici bitno nove povijesti. Za sve njih bilo je to poput pokrštenja. Poput inicijacije u autentičniji, dublji, dostojanstveniji, zanimljiviji život, vredniji življenja, za ljude između potlačenih i tlačitelja, za rasu između mitskih demona i mitskih anđela, za pojedinca između Jednoga i beskonačnoga.

Dóra Hegyi i Zsuzsa László [tranzit. hu] u razgovoru sTámasom St. Aubyjemnadglednik IPUT-a, agent NETRAF-a / IPUT-ove neosocijalističkorealističke Fronte globalnih

protufalsifikatora povijesti umjetnosti /

U Fluxusu

nadahnjuje to što

on iz stvaralačkog

procesa isključuje

pojam umjetnika

kao talentiranog,

gotovo nadljudskog

bića, ili preciznije:

u njega uključuje

“netalentirane” i tako

prevrednuje cijeli

fenomen stvaralačkog

procesa. Nov pogled

na život, novi

etos. Neumjetnička

umjetnost je za

svakoga, od svakoga

Tisak je reagirao kao i obično: objedama i denuncijacijama.Ali, što je drugo i mogao? Shvatili su da je happening

prebrisao njihov svijet. Kako bi to izgledalo da se tisak založi za globalni, vječni happening?

Je li se vaš odnos s publikom mijenjao kroz različite happeninge i akcije? Ako jest, kako?Svaka akcija i happening teži novoj strukturi danih elemenata. Budući da razni happeninzi – nažalost – još nisu uspjeli potaknuti svjetski estetski ustanak, moramo eksperimentirati s njim sve dok se ne podigne sam. Nejednakost, nebratstvo, nesloboda je kič.

Koji su bili vaši utjecaji ovdje i u inozemstvu?Državna moć proturječila je sama sebi: sistem vojno-trgovačke birokracije zabranio mi je putovanja u zapadne zemlje, a od 1968. nisam mogao putovati ni u takozvane socijalističke zemlje, pa su utjecaji – bolje rečeno, “žarišta” – bili prilično ograničeni i sporadični. Spomenuo bih samo jedno ime: Béla Hamvas – on pokriva sva druga “žarišta”, od megalitskih kultura, brahmanizma, faraona Ehnatona, sufija itd, preko fra Angelica, Angelusa Silesiusa, Purcella, Jakoba Böhmea itd, do Nietzschea, Maljeviča, Mahatme Gandhija, Renéa Guenona itd. Svakodnevno sam se napajao Gerryjem Mulliganom i rock-and-rollom, a party je pstajao umjetnička forma epohe. Konkretna i elektronička glazba dr. Lászlóa Végha, predstavljena u polulegalnim situacijama, u stanovima 1963. bila je pravo otkriće – ona me je prenijela iz puberteta u odraslo doba. U nekim prilikama uspijevao sam pronaći neke zanimljive izvore na svojim čestim putovanjima u Poljsku od 1963, na primjer na Varšavsko ljeto, međunarodni poljski festival suvremene glazbe.

Interes se radikalno promijenio nakon happeninga s ručkom 1966. Marcel Duchamp, John Cage, George Brecht, Allan Kaprow, Wolf Vostell, Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Henry Flynt, Maciunas, Malcolm X, Frantz Fanon, Timothy Leary,

Abbie Hoffman, itd, i dada, pop-art, akcionizam, Fluxus, Concept art, konceptualna umjetnost, Mail art, Project art i svi srodni trendovi postali su temom mojih intervencija – i dalje putem sekundarnih izvora informacija, do 1975, kada sam mogao legalno izaći iz sive Mađarske – iako su me ilegalne sive vlasti ilegalno poslale u zlatno izgnanstvo.

Kako ste se upoznali s Fluxusom i što vas je u njemu nadahnulo?Preko spomenute knjige o happeningu.

U Fluxusu nadahnjuje to što on iz stvaralačkog procesa isključuje pojam umjetnika kao talentiranog, gotovo nadljudskog bića, ili preciznije: u njega uključuje

“netalentirane” i tako prevrednuje cijeli fenomen stvaralačkog procesa.

Nov pogled na život, novi etos. Neumjetnička umjetnost je za svakoga, od svakoga.

Kako ste se počeli baviti lijepim umjetnostima i izlaganjem?Preko spomenutog prerastanja poezije.

Govoreći praktično: “poetizacijom” ili konceptualizacijom danoga putem objekata koje sam načinio 1965, a zatim i uključenjem u happening i environment još 1966, a zatim i utemeljenjem Internacionalne paralelne telekomunikacijske unije, osnovane 1968. pod paravanom Parallel Course / Study Track. Subsistence Level Standard Project 1984 W upravo je neumjetnička umjetnička operacija IPUT-a. Puki umjetnički predmeti samo su nusproizvodi nadglednikovog hobija.

Izložba je samo još jedan način objavljivanja tiskanih materijala. Interaktivna intermedijska akcija samo je još jedan način oslobađanja povijesti. Shabbat / Wei Wu Wei / St. Rike samo je još jedan put prema mitskom samospasenju slobodne volje.

Interes se radikalno

promijenio nakon

happeninga s

ručkom 1966. Marcel

Duchamp, John Cage,

George Brecht, Allan

Kaprow, Wolf Vostell,

Joseph Beuys, Andy

Warhol, Henry Flynt,

Maciunas, Malcolm

X, Frantz Fanon,

Timothy Leary, Abbie

Hoffman, itd, i dada,

pop-art, akcionizam,

Fluxus, Concept

art, konceptualna

umjetnost, Mail art,

Project art...

Ženeva – Budimpešta – Istanbul – Benares, 16.9.2009.

Ručak (in memoriam Batu Khan), Happening, Budimpešta, 1966. / Lunch (in memoriam Batu Khan) Happening - Budapest, 1966 Snimio / Photos: Gyula Zaránd, Ljubaznošću / Courtesy of IPUTNPU-Archives

Ručak (in memoriam Batu Khan), Happening, Budimpešta, 1966. / Lunch (in memoriam Batu Khan) Happening - Budapest, 1966 Snimio / Photos: Gyula Zaránd, Ljubaznošću / Courtesy of IPUTNPU-Archives

42 43

documentation of the action The Nude/Model by Orshi Drozdik

Godine 1977. Orsolya Drozdik predstavila je akciju u Klubu mladih umjetnika: od 4. do 10. siječnja u izložbenom prostoru crtala je ženski akt. Svaki dan izložbu je otvarao drugi muški umjetnik i povjesničar umjetnosti. Posjetioci nisu smjeli ulaziti u prostoriju u kojoj su radili umjetnica i model, nego su ih mogli vidjeti samo s vrata kroz zastor od gaze.

1. Umjetnički model.2. Institucionalizirani umjetnički model. Umjetnički model.3. Model mišljenja – što društvo želi pojedincu.4. Model mišljenja – što pojedinac nudi društvu.5. Sukob modela.—  Orsolya Drozdik

In 1977 Orsolya Drozdik presented an action in the Club of Young Artists: from January 4-10 she was drawing a female nude model in the exhibition space. The exhibition was opened every day by different male artists and an art historian. The visitors were not allowed to enter the room where the artist and the sitter were working but could only see them from the door through a gauze curtain.

1. Fine art Model.2. The institutionalized fine art model. Art model.3. The model of thought - that society wishes to the individual. -4. The model of thought - that the individual offers to society.5. Modelconflict.—  Orsolya Drozdik

Dokumentacija akcije “Akt/Model” Orshi Drozdik

Izbor vizualnog materijala prikazanog na izložbi Paralelne kronologije, Labor, Budimpešta, 2009 / Selection from the visual materials presented at the Parallel Chronologies exhibition, Labor, Budapest, 2009, Ljubaznošću / Courtesy: Orshi Drozdik

Akcija rukovanje (organizirao i fotografirao László Beke) / Hand-shake action (organized and photographed by László Beke), 1972, Balatonboglár, Ljubaznošću / courtesy of Artpool Art Research Center